Vote

Moreover, if I find that I have purchased a restricted CD, without the CD being labeled as such, I will be bringing it back for an immediate credit/refund. The idea that I have to label which CD's will play on my computer, my DVD player, my car CD player or my home CD player brings out a reaction similar to what my forefathers felt when they threw the damn tea into the harbor. Where the heck is Phillips and their enforcement of the Red Book standard?

I certainly won't buy one if I know about it. It seems the music industry is more about greed and less about art. I'm not going to willingly play their game, even though I don't make copies . . .

Even if it means I can never buy any new music; so be it!

yep i have nothing better to do with my time then to go out and rip off record labels. give me a brake!!!!..

The restriction of my ability to "digitally" copy a piece of music would only be a problem for me if the sound quality of the recording was affected. I don't think that my old Yammaha TK1000 tape deck would be effected by these encryption systems though, but I am paying a tax for that privledge!

I have never made a copy of a CD even though I now have the capacity to do so. I am opposed to restricted CDs because the error rates are much higher and I am sure that it affects the quality of the playback.

According to Philips, its not a CD. Why would I buy something that will not work in half os my equipment capable of playing CDs?

See "Soapbox" for all the reasons I won't buy a restricted CD. Thanks to the link, I've just found five CD's that were on my "to buy" list that I won't be purchasing. I also found a CD that I had purchased some time ago that I thought was just not up to previous standards. Now I may know why.

I have spent way too much money on stereo and HT equipment trying to improve sound quality to waste all of that by placing corrupted source material in the front end. Why don't I just shoot myself in the foot. Hey, if sound quality isn't important why don't we all sell all of our equipment and by transistor radios. If they want to increase revenues for all of the starving artists, push SACD/CD and cut the price of a recording in half. They will be awash in money and forget about spending usless monies on copy protection. $16 to $17 is high for me much less for the industries future (Teens).

I but few CD's compared to Lp's but if the quality is going down then maybe i have purchased my last.

I want to continue enjoying music as I work with my Mac.

I don't see why I cannot make copies for use in other CD players that I own. For example my cd player in my car has been known to make surface marks on discs and so I am reluctant to use non copies in the car.

I am buying SACD's and they are certainly restricted.

CDs are bad enough without copy protection or watermarking. The effects of watermarking are plainly audible. Wake up, record companies - you can't pull this over on us.

If I have no choice I'll buy it because I love the music not the sound or the politics.

It,s not worth the money!!

Do you think I'm nuts? I NEVER will buy such a sub-standard product which cannot be called a CD, technically or legally, and could ruin my CD player!

I've killed way too many original CD's in my car's relatively harsh environment. If I can't make a copy of it for my iPOD, I don't want it.

I will never knowingly touch a restricted use CD with money of mine. The whole thing is so damn stupid, all these guys are going to do is rip an analog copy onto a CD burner, and they're off and running. Its just dumb as hell. The rippers will win and the suits are only chasing their tails and hurting the honest hobbiest. So sad.

I will probably buy one to see what the buzz is about - to determine if I can hear sonic degradation. If I do, it will be the last one I buy. Too much music and too little time and budget. I can keep buying "unrestricted" cds for years before I run out of ideas. And, it that happens, then I'll buy vinyl and start burning cds. I don't blame record companies for trying to protect themselves from stealing. But once they start throwing out the sonic baby with the bathwater, then I'm a done deal as far as a consumer is concerned.

Yesterday I did not buy three CDs from BMG and Warner because because of concern that their restrictions will corrupt the sound

If it doesn't play in ALL CD players (CD-ROMs, cars etc) then forget it! It's technically neat but doesnt help the record industry one bit.

NEVER

Never, ever.

But only if it has a SACD layer.

I don't buy cd's of any kind.

I won't buy it -- I make copies for the car player, to protect the original. Labels need to understand that there are legitimate reasons for burning a CD copy.

What part of never don't you understand?!!!!

It would depend on the price(if is was very low) and how much I liked the music.

The price of a CD is already too high. In my opinion it includes at least the royalties of one copy, plus I never play originals in my car, the conditions are very harsh and I want my CDs to last the claimed lifetime...