Vote

Only by accident.

It's important to listen to and support the artists. I doubt the newer or less superstar artists have much say regarding "restricted-use or not". I'll probably buy the music and fight restricted-use CDs, but not on the backs of the artists.

It's not a CD because it violates the redbook standard and is nothing more than a lame attempt by the recording industry to constrain "fair use" of goods for which we've paid good money.

Can someone tell me if restricted use CD's sound worse? Thats the only thing I care about! I have a $15,000 DAC, and the last thing I wanna hear is that some idiot has decided to introduce erroneous bit patterns into CD's. In a world where people can hear the difference between the type of cable used between their transport and DAC, how can we tolerate any fudging of CD content by record companies?

I'll never buy a restricted CD because I am an American and the recording industry has no right to infringe on my personal and legal use of a CD I buy. In fact, I may never buy another CD, period. I have this sudden yearning for the good old teenage days of recording my music off the air. Wait...the good old days are back! I'll just get me a $9.95/month subscription to XM, a MD recorder and be back in recording heaven. Who needs overpriced CDs anymore? It won't even take long to recoup the money I will have to spend on new hardware. And now I just read here that SACD/CD hybrids are coming out (maybe.) Think that won't jack up the price of a CD even more? Ha!

Heck. I buy very few CDs these days. Its vinyl and SACDs for me.

As an analog die hard, I buy very few CDs. And, to be honest, one reason I continue to love LPs is because the recording industry regularly pushes copy protection systems. However, despite this, I might buy a restricted CD--if and only if it was something I really, really, really, really wanted.

NO Fair use is an established standard that has worked well for the past 20 odd years. The only difference between then and now is an increased level of greed that masks the real problems of a bloated music industry management structure and the debatable quality of the current product. The proposed legislation by the Disney Democrat is really an end run around established fair use, copyright and public domain statutes. I find it interesting and ironic that a Democrat is leading the charge to control consumer behavior and drasticly erode the protection of personal privacy. Just say no !!

It's time for the radio stations and the record companies to end their monopoly. You can't find any new innovative music on the radio anymore and record prices are absurd. People demanded better conditions and they got worldwide filesharing. Serves the record companies right.

I used to spend $200.00 a month on CD's. In the last year I have spent $0.00. You do the math.

The latest Star Wars sound track in UK has copy protection. Sorry but Sony has lost a sale to me. I'll wait till Erich Kunzel does a cover version on Telarc!

I'd prefer not to buy one, but how am I supposed to tell? Apparently the majority are not marked as copy-protected, and the small print is difficult enough to decipher through the shrink-wrapping anyway. I must say that I have had no problem playing any CD in a disk drive. Nor can I say that I could spot one from the sound - production values are so varied anyway that corrupted sound is not exactly rare.

If it meant dollars out of our pocket, wouldn't we be trying to protect ourselves too.

It appears the vast majority of restricted-use CDs are pop, which is generally so poorly recorded that it makes no difference to me whether their use is restricted or not, since I don't buy the garbage. Therefore, I won't be buying a copy-protected knowingly. If any CD I buy is audibly compromised, it'll be returned.

No Way.!!!

If I do end up with one, I will copy it in analogue and pass it on to everyone I know. This will be my way of protesting copy protection.

Home recording is not killing the recording business it is who they are recording that is killing the business.

If I buy a recording, I should be able to copy it, throw it out the window or sleep with it. It is my business.

I hate pirat/burned Cds. I'd rather spend 3 or 4 times more money on original CD, than buy 3 or 4 'street' CDs for the same amount of money.

If this becomes usual policy then I'd go back to vinyl. I've already made first moves towards that direction. I expect to get quality products when I pay

When I buy a record, I don't expect that I can copy it to another record. Why is it imperative that so many demand the right to copy cd's? You want to tape it? Sure, no problem. You want to duplicate it? Problem. This is a no brainer. If the restrictions don't alter sound quality it makes no difference to honest folks.

restricted CD are Un-Constitutional

Under NO circumstances will I purchase anything that does not allow me to do what I please with my purchase. It's the principle, how dare they.

I love music, so I can never say never. Hopefully I can continue to have a choice, so that I can buy MOST of the music I want. If that choice is taken away, I will continue to buy music. That's the point of this hobby anyway isn't it?

The only way I would buy a restricted use or watermarked cd would be if they could demonstrate that it didn't effect the sound. I can't imagine how they could do this. Nor can I imagine that they would have any interest in doing this!

Plus most new releases are crap anyways.

If I know about the disc being copy protected, I will never buy a restricted CD.

The record companies are making enough money without resorting to such drastic measures. I'll be buying all my CD's at a used CD store from now on.

Not if it is a maybe CD.

I am just sick of the whole mess. Too many great lp's out there to worry about these fools.