It's not like i stockpile a crapload of mp3s without purchasing music. mp3s are nothing close to the real deal of a quality sounding CD and all the art etc that goes into it, with over 200 CDs store bought of practically every genre out there, i can safely say that I wouldn't give up any of them. I like every song on them because I previewed them in advance. This makes me one hell of a satisfied customer.
I respect musicians greatly. Awhile back I was a lead singer for a small band. Did a few gigs, had fun, but that was about it. Now, making a living out of it would be hard, and yes I can fully understand a musician's point of view on this matter.
All examples in my parient post aside:
Imagine buying a PC like buying an album. Would you buy a PC if you only knew what the monitor was and CPU? You'd have to buy the system to find out what the rest of the system consisted of, just like an album is now (for the most part.)
Does this seem right? To make customers satisfied customers is to give them exactly what their expecting to get and nothing less.
I would just like to hear all the songs on a given album so I can make an informed investment on purchasing a CD. That was the primary reason for my post. I wouldn't even have to have copies of the songs on said album, just to hear them all would be good enough. Becuase then i'd know exactly what i'm getting. Unlike today's mass method of buying music.
This is sort of an on-off topic post. On topic becuase it deals with the same "stuff" but Off becuase it doesn't partian to Belgium, more like the US. But i'd like to know:
Suppose i wanted to download a Crystal Method album. I'd fire up the Napster client (or whatever P2P client that i could use) and go ahead and search and download all the songs on said album. Now, I would NEVER pay for the album, never. So the record company(s) would never see my money in their hands for their product anyway becuase I would never buy it in the first place, so how is this considered stealing?
I tried poking holes in that by playing the opponient to that thought pattern. Here's an example:
Ok, if you think that, then i suppose going into a Wal-mart and taking a Crystal Meth CD off the rack and taking it without paying for it is not stealing either. But you didn't pay for that CD that you just stole, so you are stealing. It's the same difference.
(reverts back to defender of Napster/other forms of P2P music sharing)
Taking a a CD from Wal-Mart or any other store without paying IS stealing. It's stealing because Wal-Mart would have to cover the loss due to you taking the CD without paying for it. It hurts Wal-mart as a retailer.
However, Napster (et al) is different. It's different because the users on the system at one point in time paid for the Crystal Meth CD that I downloaded in mp3 form. One or more of those users had to pay for it, rip to mp3, and allow me to download it. They are willingly giving it to me. They don't expect a payment for my download. So unlike Wal-Mart, the users on Napster wouldn't consider it a loss. Their giving it away.
Again, how could I be "hurting the livelyhood" of Crystal Meth if I never intended to by their CD in the first place? They wouldn't recieve money from me for their CD, so i'm not hurting or stealing. Because stealing implies that I am taking their product away and their stuck with paying the distributior/record companies out of their own pocket. However, since I wouldn't buy the CD in the first place, their not losing money. Which would not hurt them (meaning losing money off of their works.)
(Reverts to Offense)
But your breaking the law!! Look on any CD, it'll say: "Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federial law. And subject to criminal prosecution." or something to that effect.
(Defense)
But i'm not stealing am I.
(Offense)
No? But your still breaking the law, and thiefs break the law too. And that's what your doing.
(Defense)
humm...
(end of debate)
I couldn't think of a good defense for that, since i'm not fluient in Fair use laws
I'm not advocating Napster et al or a basher of them either. And personally when i download mp3s of of whatever online, If I like it enough to justify the 16-18 Dollars then I'll go and buy it. If I don't then i usually delete the songs and be done with it.
The point of this post, on/off topic as it may seem, was to hopefully get some intelligent responses to both offense/defense people so I, as well as any open minded person, can try to grasp what the hell is going on here. If your going to mod this down to non-existance for the sheer fact that is somewhat offtopic, be my guest. I'm expecting that. But i'm sure there are others out there who think along the lines i think about this as well. Also, I welcome intelligent respones to the reason why the above example is good or bad.:)
P.S. I love Crystal Meth, and went out and purchased their ONLY album (1997), i just used them as an example.
A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off.
Honest questions below, not playing "dumb" just curious.
I'm not to sure how DVD drives operate in a PC, but my guess is that you would need some sort of card to view DVD's, correct?
If so, what would be a good affordable solution? Any particular card (assuming you need one) and DVD drives would you guys recommend? I've read so far on here that Pioneer drives are good. Any others?
Speaking of Musiccity, if you take notice to their policy, it says it all. Here's an excerpt:
"MusicCity.com will respond to claims of copyright infringement committed on our Network that are reported to MusicCity.com. If you are a copyright owner, or authorized to act on behalf of an owner of the copyright or of any exclusive right under the copyright, please report your notice of infringement to MusicCity.com. We will attempt to respond expeditiously to all claims of copyright infringement that meet all of the following requirements.
PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING A CLAIM OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Our compliance with the DMCA may include, but is not limited to, removing or disabling links to allegedly infringing material and complying with other applicable laws. To protect content owners, users and ourselves from fraudulent notices, incorrect or ineffective claims of infringement, we will respond only to Notices that are substantially compliant with the requirements of the DMCA as set forth below. Notices Must Be in Writing."
So what does this mean, (IMHO) it means that if a copyright owner doesn't want their works on the musiccity network, they have to submit it in writing and list what files spcifically are infringing, do whatever else in accordance with the law, and musiccity will remove it.
This seems to be the case for Napster as well:
Napster must halt the trading of specific files it is told to block by record companies. But that could be millions of songs, and it sets the stage for new, sweeping restrictions on what can be traded through the service - Says www.news.com.
The *real* question is: If musiccity says they can do this, (remove infringing files upon copyright owner's request) then why can't Napster do the same?
A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off.
Exactly. The more I find indie artists whom I like the more i want their music.
If Napster could work out a deal whereas every band/artist gets their fair cut across the board no matter if their on a major label, indie label, or no label at all that would motivate me to PERHAPS go along with their payment plan. (ASSUMING it was reasonable and an all-you-can-eat style).
Here's an example:
1. I download "Full On The Mouth - People Mover" from someone on the Napster network.
2. The Napster server/client/whatever "tracks" that download that i'm making and sends info to where it needs to go, so the people at Napster/RIAA know who to give a cut of money to.
3. Under no circumstances should I download a unknown/indie artist song and that artist doesn't get their fair share out of this deal.
4. And money should by NO MEANS go to a major label artist just becuase Britney and Backstreet Boys show up in my search results. UNLESS I download one of their songs.
Does that example make any sense? You download an artist's song, that artist gets a cut, no one else.
and it reaches to all performers no matter who they are.
It's called FAIRNESS and EQUAL OPPERTUNITY. I mean, wasn't napster created for the indie/unsigned artists in the first place? If they don't do this then their major hyopcrites to everything they "say" they stand for.
A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off.
I know Govt's don't understand, but lets keep in mind their are other contenders for the polling/voting machines as well. I believe the manufactuers of the lever style machines (the name escapes me) are working on a touch screen system simular to that of microsoft/unisys/dell's. Hell, if florida only had lever machines instead of the infamous paper ballots, we wouldn't have had the mess we did.
My parients voted for Ross, he seemed like a good prospect for a president, that was until i saw him this election on Larry King live endorsing GWB. He totally excluded the fact that Nader would get a leg up in the results and didn't mention ANYTHING about him whatsoever. I mean, Nader was in indie (sorta) like Perot was, but if it doesn't talk to his wallet, it doesn't exist I guess. . And, the man HOGS the camera!! He stares directly into it and throws a sales pitch on how the US should work. I never realized just how annoying he was until then.
I'm not Dem/GOP/indie I review my options and vote, sticking with one party is like sticking to a particular brand in a world full of competition, eventually someone will have somthing better to offer.
The UK court episode I haven't heard about, but it really doesn't surpise me anymore, he's a typical business man looking out for the bottom dollar.
RCA's have that problem too. I bought mine over a year ago and says in the manual that it cannot play any types of CD-Rs whatsoever.
My take on this is that manufactuers who explicitly say this in their manuals *don't* want you to use CD-Rs on your home DVD player. They went through the trouble of printing that in the manuals because they know someone will try. For what reasons I don't know. It could be just cheaper for them to not have that feature in, or maybe they thought it wasn't a viable enough reason to include it in their products.
RCA's (generally) are for the entry DVD market, and since the parient post said that theirs was a Sony, (which are mid to high scale range imho, if i'm wrong tell me) that would cancel out the fact that you need to buy a more expensive DVD player to have that feature to play CD-Rs. Also the Apex line is a good debunking example of this as well.
whatever the case, it's not just limited to Sony, be rest assured on that. I was quited disappointed that i could play VCD's on mine too. I'd like to know the reason myself.
"A penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off."
I read this article completely and I decided to post. But no sooner I clicked "Reply To This" explorer crashed. *sighs* I'm not a Linux/*nix fan nor do I particularly love MS, I call them as I see 'em. Shouldn't the manufactures of lever style machines/paper ballots/etc. be doing the work in building a more modern voting system? With all the bad press MS is recieving these days, one cannot help to wonder what would happen to the voters once hanging chads are dissolved and hanging voting systems becomes the next buzzword for the media to use.
This past election was my first time voting and we used lever style machines, which wasn't too bad. Pull a lever by the name of the guy you want in the big chair and in the congress. Or if your feeling extra fastfood style american, one quick thrust of a lever of your party of choice. Not too bad IMHO.
But MICROSOFT? The same people whom the DOJ is opening a can of woopass on? The same people you read about who make NT/2000 patches like a bodily function? I *DON'T* hate Microsoft, But look at the proposing companies past before you decide who'll be making the software for the machines you'll someday use to put democracy in motion.
"A penny for my thoughts? This is my two cents. I got ripped off."
It used to be called Americas, I'm not sure why. but if you will notice it's only America now, and since the "United States Of America" is the only country on this continent that has the word "America" in it, people assume that when you say "America" you mean the US. Just my 2cents.
The "Americas" MEANS Every country on this continent, "America" means the US.
"Your country is messed up, my country is messed up, we both know that. So why bother wasting breath on it?"
Don't get me wrong, I like Opera, i've used it for quite some time. But IE is free, Netscape is free, mozilla is free, why is Opera still charging for their broswer? I know the guys need to make money, but the competition is stiff, and it's free.
The version they have for BeOS looks very promising. I personally think it rivals Netpositive in many aspects, and may even top it.
Now, I could see paying for it. But on a Win system with quite a few other browsers that are freely available? I think not.
Everyone wants a scapegoat, until the scapegoat says "Moo".
Do you really expect me to believe that gaming is going to be the gun that'll shoot me in the forehead? I am an introvert and have been sometimes called anti-social, and I play games occassionaly. So *you* are telling me I have the potential to wind up doing something god awful becuase of it? I don't think the guys who took potshots in Columbine High School were thinking: "All the years of playing DOOM have prepared me for this!"
Games don't teach you morals unless you were raised on them. Parients teach you morals becuase their the ones rasing you. And one factor alone, such as games, isn't going to turn ordinary kids into blood thristy killers.
Everyone want's a scapegoat until the scapegoat says "Moo"
First off, your assumption that were going to fuck up another planet just like we are on Earth, is ignorant. This is our first shot mmkay? You can't expect humans to do well on their first try!
Nevertheless, there is unlimited potental that good mining and testing could do to us as a whole. There could be bacterial life or something to that effect that could cure illnesses that no other could do here on earth. There could be a new metal that doesn't originate on Earth but is vastly superior to anything we can mine here. Not only that but colonization can be a good thing.
Less overpopulated Earth, cleaner Earth due to people leaving, etc etc. This planet has an extremely good chance of healing itself if we get some people off it and on to other worlds.
This is OUR solar system, that is true. However to say that we will mess up anything we lay our hands on is WRONG. that's like saying "No, we won't explore new lands on Earth, because we might mess them up!" If everyone thought like you did we wouldn't bother leaving where we came from.
Personally I think the KEY is that all of us work together on this as a whole. If we invested in colonization like we invest in technology this would be well on it's way by now. I wouldn't mind living on a colony base on the moon or this new planet. Who knows what neat things will come out of this if we never try. I serously doubt that one piece of rock holds all the knowledge of the universe. Even so, it gives us more reason to go check it out. And if it doesn't which I expect, then go ahead and fire up the drills. A new metal just might make your computer, car, refrigerator lighter, run better, and make them more durable.
The Solar system is OUR point of origin in the universe, just like Earth is our point of origin in the solar system. I say we get out there and see what's going on.
What if MS decides to come up with a broswer that uses it's ISP (MSN Explorer), builds it into the OS, and thus be the default broswer alongside IE for their isp service.
It seems to be MS is planning to do to AOL what it did to Netscape.
#2 is not correct. There are numerious reports stating that alot of people use napster to find out of print, old music as well as rare songs you can't find anywhere. True, there are alot of people as well who do download such songs as you described, but hardly enough to justify 99%.
I agree to most of that. However, I don't think that all people are just stealing music, or want to. The major reason why napster and other such apps are used is because people are tired of paying high prices for CDs. And since singles are usually 1-2 songs your stuck with getting the rest of the album that you haven't heard.
Consider this: A salesperson wants to sell you a PC but he will only inform you about the processor and the hardrive. If you want to know the rest, you have to purchase the whole system and find out yourself. Now, does this seem fair? I think all consumers can agree that you want to know what you are buying, before you buy it.
As far as the high cost of CD's, i want to share with you and other posters that I read alot of arguements over this. People complain that CD's are expensive where they live. One person in particular stated: "I paid $18.00 for a cd, this is rediculous!" There are many places (online especially) that you can find good deals on CDs, CDNOW has quite a few in the 11-13 Dollar range. And this to me seems fair. And there are places where you can find used CDs, the best one I ever found was www.secondspin.com.
So In my humble opinion, the cost of a cd is relitive. You can find the fair prices if your willing to look. However, I think the major gripe is about getting shafted with an album with only 1-2-3 good songs
This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and it has to some extent via pay per song that emusic and others do. it would be nice if they carried this over into the record stores. Although I don't know personally how that could be achieved, but it would cater to the problem I described.
Overall I agree that artists should get paid, the RIAA is underrated, and people need to be paid for their services. But lets not forget what made this problem exist in the first place. The consumers are talking, but the question is, will the business listen?
"Don't blame me, this is my first time posting" - NetGyver
Slashdot Mirror
I respect musicians greatly. Awhile back I was a lead singer for a small band. Did a few gigs, had fun, but that was about it. Now, making a living out of it would be hard, and yes I can fully understand a musician's point of view on this matter.
All examples in my parient post aside:
Imagine buying a PC like buying an album. Would you buy a PC if you only knew what the monitor was and CPU? You'd have to buy the system to find out what the rest of the system consisted of, just like an album is now (for the most part.) Does this seem right? To make customers satisfied customers is to give them exactly what their expecting to get and nothing less.
I would just like to hear all the songs on a given album so I can make an informed investment on purchasing a CD. That was the primary reason for my post. I wouldn't even have to have copies of the songs on said album, just to hear them all would be good enough. Becuase then i'd know exactly what i'm getting. Unlike today's mass method of buying music.
Suppose i wanted to download a Crystal Method album. I'd fire up the Napster client (or whatever P2P client that i could use) and go ahead and search and download all the songs on said album. Now, I would NEVER pay for the album, never. So the record company(s) would never see my money in their hands for their product anyway becuase I would never buy it in the first place, so how is this considered stealing?
I tried poking holes in that by playing the opponient to that thought pattern. Here's an example:
Ok, if you think that, then i suppose going into a Wal-mart and taking a Crystal Meth CD off the rack and taking it without paying for it is not stealing either. But you didn't pay for that CD that you just stole, so you are stealing. It's the same difference.
(reverts back to defender of Napster/other forms of P2P music sharing)
Taking a a CD from Wal-Mart or any other store without paying IS stealing. It's stealing because Wal-Mart would have to cover the loss due to you taking the CD without paying for it. It hurts Wal-mart as a retailer.
However, Napster (et al) is different. It's different because the users on the system at one point in time paid for the Crystal Meth CD that I downloaded in mp3 form. One or more of those users had to pay for it, rip to mp3, and allow me to download it. They are willingly giving it to me. They don't expect a payment for my download. So unlike Wal-Mart, the users on Napster wouldn't consider it a loss. Their giving it away.
Again, how could I be "hurting the livelyhood" of Crystal Meth if I never intended to by their CD in the first place? They wouldn't recieve money from me for their CD, so i'm not hurting or stealing. Because stealing implies that I am taking their product away and their stuck with paying the distributior/record companies out of their own pocket. However, since I wouldn't buy the CD in the first place, their not losing money. Which would not hurt them (meaning losing money off of their works.)
(Reverts to Offense)
But your breaking the law!! Look on any CD, it'll say: "Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federial law. And subject to criminal prosecution." or something to that effect.
(Defense)
But i'm not stealing am I. (Offense)
No? But your still breaking the law, and thiefs break the law too. And that's what your doing.
(Defense)
humm... (end of debate)
I couldn't think of a good defense for that, since i'm not fluient in Fair use laws
I'm not advocating Napster et al or a basher of them either. And personally when i download mp3s of of whatever online, If I like it enough to justify the 16-18 Dollars then I'll go and buy it. If I don't then i usually delete the songs and be done with it.
The point of this post, on/off topic as it may seem, was to hopefully get some intelligent responses to both offense/defense people so I, as well as any open minded person, can try to grasp what the hell is going on here. If your going to mod this down to non-existance for the sheer fact that is somewhat offtopic, be my guest. I'm expecting that. But i'm sure there are others out there who think along the lines i think about this as well. Also, I welcome intelligent respones to the reason why the above example is good or bad. :)
P.S. I love Crystal Meth, and went out and purchased their ONLY album (1997), i just used them as an example.
I'm not to sure how DVD drives operate in a PC, but my guess is that you would need some sort of card to view DVD's, correct?
If so, what would be a good affordable solution? Any particular card (assuming you need one) and DVD drives would you guys recommend? I've read so far on here that Pioneer drives are good. Any others?
"MusicCity.com will respond to claims of copyright infringement committed on our Network that are reported to MusicCity.com. If you are a copyright owner, or authorized to act on behalf of an owner of the copyright or of any exclusive right under the copyright, please report your notice of infringement to MusicCity.com. We will attempt to respond expeditiously to all claims of copyright infringement that meet all of the following requirements.
PROCEDURES FOR SUBMITTING A CLAIM OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT Our compliance with the DMCA may include, but is not limited to, removing or disabling links to allegedly infringing material and complying with other applicable laws. To protect content owners, users and ourselves from fraudulent notices, incorrect or ineffective claims of infringement, we will respond only to Notices that are substantially compliant with the requirements of the DMCA as set forth below. Notices Must Be in Writing."
So what does this mean, (IMHO) it means that if a copyright owner doesn't want their works on the musiccity network, they have to submit it in writing and list what files spcifically are infringing, do whatever else in accordance with the law, and musiccity will remove it.
This seems to be the case for Napster as well:
Napster must halt the trading of specific files it is told to block by record companies. But that could be millions of songs, and it sets the stage for new, sweeping restrictions on what can be traded through the service - Says www.news.com.
The *real* question is: If musiccity says they can do this, (remove infringing files upon copyright owner's request) then why can't Napster do the same?
Honestly, is it me, or does that link not work?
A penny for my thoughts? This is my two cents. I got ripped off.
If Napster could work out a deal whereas every band/artist gets their fair cut across the board no matter if their on a major label, indie label, or no label at all that would motivate me to PERHAPS go along with their payment plan. (ASSUMING it was reasonable and an all-you-can-eat style).
Here's an example:
1. I download "Full On The Mouth - People Mover" from someone on the Napster network.
2. The Napster server/client/whatever "tracks" that download that i'm making and sends info to where it needs to go, so the people at Napster/RIAA know who to give a cut of money to.
3. Under no circumstances should I download a unknown/indie artist song and that artist doesn't get their fair share out of this deal.
4. And money should by NO MEANS go to a major label artist just becuase Britney and Backstreet Boys show up in my search results. UNLESS I download one of their songs.
Does that example make any sense? You download an artist's song, that artist gets a cut, no one else. and it reaches to all performers no matter who they are. It's called FAIRNESS and EQUAL OPPERTUNITY. I mean, wasn't napster created for the indie/unsigned artists in the first place? If they don't do this then their major hyopcrites to everything they "say" they stand for.
--(NetGyver)--My parients voted for Ross, he seemed like a good prospect for a president, that was until i saw him this election on Larry King live endorsing GWB. He totally excluded the fact that Nader would get a leg up in the results and didn't mention ANYTHING about him whatsoever. I mean, Nader was in indie (sorta) like Perot was, but if it doesn't talk to his wallet, it doesn't exist I guess. . And, the man HOGS the camera!! He stares directly into it and throws a sales pitch on how the US should work. I never realized just how annoying he was until then.
I'm not Dem/GOP/indie I review my options and vote, sticking with one party is like sticking to a particular brand in a world full of competition, eventually someone will have somthing better to offer.
The UK court episode I haven't heard about, but it really doesn't surpise me anymore, he's a typical business man looking out for the bottom dollar.
My take on this is that manufactuers who explicitly say this in their manuals *don't* want you to use CD-Rs on your home DVD player. They went through the trouble of printing that in the manuals because they know someone will try. For what reasons I don't know. It could be just cheaper for them to not have that feature in, or maybe they thought it wasn't a viable enough reason to include it in their products.
RCA's (generally) are for the entry DVD market, and since the parient post said that theirs was a Sony, (which are mid to high scale range imho, if i'm wrong tell me) that would cancel out the fact that you need to buy a more expensive DVD player to have that feature to play CD-Rs. Also the Apex line is a good debunking example of this as well.
whatever the case, it's not just limited to Sony, be rest assured on that. I was quited disappointed that i could play VCD's on mine too. I'd like to know the reason myself.
This past election was my first time voting and we used lever style machines, which wasn't too bad. Pull a lever by the name of the guy you want in the big chair and in the congress. Or if your feeling extra fastfood style american, one quick thrust of a lever of your party of choice. Not too bad IMHO.
But MICROSOFT? The same people whom the DOJ is opening a can of woopass on? The same people you read about who make NT/2000 patches like a bodily function? I *DON'T* hate Microsoft, But look at the proposing companies past before you decide who'll be making the software for the machines you'll someday use to put democracy in motion.
The "Americas" MEANS Every country on this continent, "America" means the US.
The version they have for BeOS looks very promising. I personally think it rivals Netpositive in many aspects, and may even top it. Now, I could see paying for it. But on a Win system with quite a few other browsers that are freely available? I think not.
The PS2 isn't that powerful and I think Sony knows it. Why else would they market the PS9 in the same ad as the PS2? :)
Games don't teach you morals unless you were raised on them. Parients teach you morals becuase their the ones rasing you. And one factor alone, such as games, isn't going to turn ordinary kids into blood thristy killers.
Nevertheless, there is unlimited potental that good mining and testing could do to us as a whole. There could be bacterial life or something to that effect that could cure illnesses that no other could do here on earth. There could be a new metal that doesn't originate on Earth but is vastly superior to anything we can mine here. Not only that but colonization can be a good thing.
Less overpopulated Earth, cleaner Earth due to people leaving, etc etc. This planet has an extremely good chance of healing itself if we get some people off it and on to other worlds.
This is OUR solar system, that is true. However to say that we will mess up anything we lay our hands on is WRONG. that's like saying "No, we won't explore new lands on Earth, because we might mess them up!" If everyone thought like you did we wouldn't bother leaving where we came from.
Personally I think the KEY is that all of us work together on this as a whole. If we invested in colonization like we invest in technology this would be well on it's way by now. I wouldn't mind living on a colony base on the moon or this new planet. Who knows what neat things will come out of this if we never try. I serously doubt that one piece of rock holds all the knowledge of the universe. Even so, it gives us more reason to go check it out. And if it doesn't which I expect, then go ahead and fire up the drills. A new metal just might make your computer, car, refrigerator lighter, run better, and make them more durable.
The Solar system is OUR point of origin in the universe, just like Earth is our point of origin in the solar system. I say we get out there and see what's going on.
It seems to be MS is planning to do to AOL what it did to Netscape.
Consider this: A salesperson wants to sell you a PC but he will only inform you about the processor and the hardrive. If you want to know the rest, you have to purchase the whole system and find out yourself. Now, does this seem fair? I think all consumers can agree that you want to know what you are buying, before you buy it.
As far as the high cost of CD's, i want to share with you and other posters that I read alot of arguements over this. People complain that CD's are expensive where they live. One person in particular stated: "I paid $18.00 for a cd, this is rediculous!" There are many places (online especially) that you can find good deals on CDs, CDNOW has quite a few in the 11-13 Dollar range. And this to me seems fair. And there are places where you can find used CDs, the best one I ever found was www.secondspin.com.
So In my humble opinion, the cost of a cd is relitive. You can find the fair prices if your willing to look. However, I think the major gripe is about getting shafted with an album with only 1-2-3 good songs
This is a problem that needs to be addressed, and it has to some extent via pay per song that emusic and others do. it would be nice if they carried this over into the record stores. Although I don't know personally how that could be achieved, but it would cater to the problem I described.
Overall I agree that artists should get paid, the RIAA is underrated, and people need to be paid for their services. But lets not forget what made this problem exist in the first place. The consumers are talking, but the question is, will the business listen?
"Don't blame me, this is my first time posting" - NetGyver