Vote

Record companies have the right to sell anything they want. We have a right not to buy it. It's my guess that the bad publicity that such paranoid practices engender will prove to cost the RIAA members more than they save.

I don't like the idea, and it is extremely unfair to foist this on an unsuspecting public. At least with DVD-Audio, it was made plainly clear that all major label discs would be watermarked, so the public could make an informed decision whether or not to purchase. But this situation where CDs are copy-protected without the knowledge of the buyer is fraudulent behavior on the part of the record labels. Maybe if we knew what titles were copy-protected we could decide for ourselves if there was really some audible distortion that would ruin our enjoyment of the music contained within.

Well, guys, if you start adding distortion to the stuff I buy, you can kiss my business goodbye. I spend $200+ per month on new CDs; if I stop spending and just listen to what I have already purchased, I can go for a very long time without buying anything new. And I will do just that if the idiots at the record companies insist on adding distortion to CDs.

I ask Stereophile to set up a page on your site with the names of all the record labels and the types of protection they use. This would help consumers boycott these labels.

Why is so much money, time and effort put into reducing or eliminating any kind of distortion when some stupid idiots want to purposely add distortion into the program source??

So they want to copy protect CDs, by adding errors? So, in fact, they're selling sub-standard CDs under the guise of copy protection—CDs that don't work when played back legitimately on a computer. In fact not just these CDs or labels should be boycotted, but we should just stop buying music altogether for a few weeks, months, etc. As long as it takes for this all to stop and our fair use rights acknowledged and protected.

This is just a gimick to sell more CD's I always burn copies for my personnal use at work or in the vehicle. It's not as if I was doing the coping at such a rate to infringe on sales I just don't want to take a long a 15-30 dollar disc and risk it being stolen or lost. Where was this technology when we has cassette's why wasn't is such a concern then. No I believe that when I buy a book I should have the option of coping a page for reference. As when I purcahse a CD I should have the option of making a copy for my personnal use. This is just another form of control that is taking precidence in this country. Why can't I buy a shirt without having someones name on it. Isn't the exchange of money for goods enough any more? Why is the consumer a.k.a. the sole supporter of any industry given any rights. On a political note why are we the taxpayer the sole supporters givenone vote then our opinions never considered important till the next election. My remedy is that I have enough music and I refuse to buy a product that is never really mine. This saves me money and storage of these CD's, thank God vinyl is still the best music anyway. To the record company's: in an attempt to make more money by stopping the little amount of copying going on may you realize a great loss in sales and experience less profit as a result.

Where can we find a list of the labels?

Won't purchase any CD that I know that contains copy protection...If it isn't labled as having it then we should all complain!

I will buy no more new CDs until the copy-protected ones are identified.

Secretly altering the product is an unacceptable business practice.

If there isn't a law against this, there should be! This is as dishonest as making illegal copies.

K. Gilmore writes in Soapbox: "The technology will limit fair use by making it more difficult for ordinary consumers to store their own collections digitally, make backup copies of treasured discs, or make compilation CDs. All of these activities are legal and protected under fair use..." I belong to an internet music group. We make mixed CDs for each other on a regular basis. Each new offering triggers CD purchases by all of us, as we learn of new artists. It also encourages CD purchases by me so I can make my mixed CDs more interesting! The very idea of them trying to limit our freedom to do this is not only repugnant to me personally, it's also incredibly short-sighted and counter to THEIR OWN interests. Damn those greedy bastards.

There's no question that many people are making illegal copies of CDs, so you have to respect the industry's right to protect the copyrighted material. On the other hand, this solution does penalize everyone who makes compilation CDs, and it may turn out the copy protection is audible or causes problems during playback on some equipment. I think someone will hack this and distribute software that can detect and remove the copy protection. Since I do make compilation CDs, I'll be on the lookout for a software "solution" and will use it.

Copy protection will be an issue for me if the protection is audible. The bigger issue is the migration from full private ownership of a copy, to the purchase of a limited use liscense—which is what copy protection represents. I would hope for a middle ground that allows for artist compensation (and protection of intellectual property) and maximum fidelity for the consumer. Then again, I still believe in the tooth fairy.

It's bullshit. Plain and simple.

The first time I encounter a copy-protected CD will be the last time I purchase a CD from that label. This is an intolerable defacement of my most prized art form.

If the label is that concerned about keeping their music safe, they can keep it to themselves.

Once again, the music industry proves that there is no end to greed. As was stated in the soapbox, the music industry is one of the few industries to always thumb their noses at consumers. They're shameless.

I am annoyed at the recording industry. I'm also annoyed by friends and family who insist on making CD-Rs from my blues and jazz collection, when they are considerably better off financially than most of the artists.

Copy protection is fine by me if I can have the absolute guarantee that it won't negatively affect the sound quality in any way at all.

If a label cares so little about sound quality that it would (potentially) compromise it for copy protection, then it certainly won't get any of my business.

I believe that I should be able to make my own cd's to play in the car.I also like the idea of make compilation to use for parties. They say there has been no complaints but what kind of music have they use for those test (distortion base metal or hip-hop...)

This is how the whole country operates. Inadequate/non-existent law enforcement forces changes that compromise quality for everybody. In NYC police walk past CD street vendors all the time, they're too busy make money from parking tickets.

LPs were never copy-protected and they sound better than CDs. Why should we have to put up with a double-whammy by listening to crappy sounding AND copy-protected CDs? BOYCOTT&$151;SPIN LPs!

I can understand the need to protect one's assets, but it is hard for me to feel sorry for a business that short-changes its artists and gouges the public. The exorbitant CD prices hardly reflect the cost of production. Not to mention lame format wars trying to dupe us into nearly spending now twice as much for still awful recordings. It does not evoke stirring emotions of sympathy. You want to prevent people from bootlegging? It's simple, sell your product at a price point which makes it a waste of time to do so.

When it comes to me not being able to make my own copies for computer use and my car, that's the end of my purchasing of music CDs. CDs are already a rip-off due to their high cost, which has not gone down since the day they were created. Can you imagine the record industry trying to kill the consumer's use of his purchase and the industry that has come about to support CD coping (CD drive makers, and blank disk makers as well)? I am totally against making copies of copyrighted materials, but I will not stand for my individual rights being limited on a high price product such as music CDs.

I have been making backup copies of my music since tapes.

i like mixing my favorite songs from various cd's I buy. I have noticed some distortions. I have a right to know if there is a protection scheme in place and if so, then I won't waste my hard-earned dollars on that cd.

Just another step in the wrong direction, orchestrated by the people that care more about the money than the music. I'm all for artists' getting paid for their art, but that's really not what this is all about, is it? Most artists understand the inherent value of having one of their songs included on a mix you made for a friend, or of being downloaded by someone who otherwise wouldn't have purchased their music, simply because the download is free. It's exposure to new listeners, to new music buyers who might get so turned on by that one copied song that they rush out to purchase the entire album. Because let's face it, true music fans will never be satisfied with a library full of copies.