Vote

When I purchase a CD, I am also purchasing the right to unobstructed personal use. If bits are added that not effect the sonic character of the music, but also prevent me from making a digital copy for the car or even party mixes, then my rights are being taken away.

Is that why I see so many copies of Casey Chambers CDs on the shelf? yeah, i'd buy one JUST to rip it and prove a point by circulating the mp3s!

Only if they are clearly marked on the package to be restricted.

I have had the the advantage of over 40 years listening to all methods of stereo reproduction, always being amongst the first to purchase the latest new technological advance. I have found that apart from reduction of noise and distortion ,stereo reproduction was superior 40 years ago.I now collect L.Ps from this period and using the latest technology,clean and record them to C.D.This is the largest advance I have heard in forty years. P.S. STEREO is a defective method of reproduction anyway as it was flawed for loudspeaker reproduction I utilise a six channel forward soundstage.

Copying`s always been a fact of life with any software, yet only now is it deemed responsible for declining sales because the music industry has declined into a formulaic pop conveyor-belt. Give us a decent product at a decent price and I believe we`ll buy enough CDs to keep the major`s shareholders happy; so far as copy-protection as a whole is concerned, has anyone tried putting tooth-paste back in the tube?

Do one has a choice? If one wants the music, one buys the cd, wether it's restricted or not!

If I wanted music that is anything but as good as the sound artists intended, I may just as well burn them from the internet (or the radio, or from my friend who knows how to hack the tune, or buy the LP if it is available, etc). I want the best sound possible from my media or I am not bothering spending my money.

Hi CD are already much to expensive . I do not record CD but I see it as a matter of principle to do whatever you chose when you by and own a product.

I do not own any pirated music so I do not need the record companies controlling what I do with a product that I paid for

Unless it becomes an industry standard and my choice is buy restricted-use or not buy music, and there is no other viable alternative, I will never give my money to any label employing this kind of restriction. After all, none of this is about protecting or enhancing returns to artists, but rather only protecting markets and market makers. As long as I'm commenting, I'll add (in case any industry types are reading) that I would never have stopped buying CDs anyway, regardless of how many MP3 versions were available, and no matter how much access I had to other people's collections for copying. Why? MP3s sound horrible (as everyone knows), and, like many others out there, I still want the 'real' thing -- jacket, insert, and all. I find it hard to believe that the industry is really losing that much business. The people that are burning and trading files now are the same ones that used to do it with cassettes. If they want to encourage people to buy the real thing, they could try cutting prices to something less than eight or nine times the cost of manufacture, which could be accomplished by exercising a little more restraint with the 'diva' recording contracts, among other methods.

I'll unbox my vinyl and go back to the basics before I buy a restricted CD.

It was no big deal when we copied to cassette. Whats the difference?

It depends on how well restricted-use CDs play on my system. Various audio writers and reviewers have not commented favorably on early samples of restricted-use CDs. I may try a few, but if results are poor, I will refuse to buy more.

I really don't know WHY? But I sure the sound would not better!!

I like to make my own compilations. Besides, I have a feeling a restricted CD does not relay the music as it should. I am a perfectionist.

Why should I? Why should any company restrict my ability to make a copy of a recording or part of one as a gift. I agree with the persons who say that companies should lower the price of CD's if they want to increase sales. Look at DVD's, they are much less expensive than Laser Disks were and they sell like crazy. Is that not enough of a reason...

Consumers aren't in the business of selling copied CD's. These are the same guys who were afraid of the cassette tapes

I will only buy a restricted use CD if A) it is proven that you can't here the watermark and B) I can find a way around the watermark should it ever become necesary for me to copy it.

Start producing only hybrid SACD's and Vinyl and the problem goes away.

I might knowingly buy a restricted CD if I can be assured I can listen to the music on all my CD players and on my computers somehow. Also, I would need to be assured that the sound quality on a CD player is no worse than if there were no protection.

I would never knowingly buy one.

I might buy it if the music was compelling enough. You can always make a copy from the analog output.

I don't like to take my CD's in the car, yet I rely on music to add balance to my life esp. during my commute. Should I have to purchase multiple copies for my own use? I think not...

haven't own one and never, can causing me a BIG ear trouble

I never use CDs to listen to music. I rip them and play them with my Audiotron. Simple reason is for convience. On the other hand I never listen to mp3 (wav, et al) that I do not have the source for unless it is a preview to purchase the source (CD). Simple reason -- I need the source as a backup and to create temp mp3s at lower bitrates for my portable player.

Fuck the RIAA. They can keep it for all I care. Vinyl is better anyway, and you can't make a copy protected vinyl.

I would only but one if it was the only way to get an album I really wanted.

I do the majority of my music listening on my computer. I don't like having to keep a large amount of CDs at work, so I convert them to Ogg Vorbis files (similiar to mp3s, but better.) This would prevent me from listening to the music I buy, and I just don't like that idea.

I don't ever play CD which are copied, so why bother.

SACD and DVD-A are both copy-protected to some degree. Why so much reluctance to release "product" in those formats?