Hi
Is anyone else having problems playing new CD's in their car. I've bought 2 recently that just play silence but work OK in the home players. The latest was the new Norah Jones CD. Seems to me that the manufacturers are selling product that does not fit the purpose. I've mailed EMI a complaint so I'll see what they say before taking it further. Anyone work for Trading Standards ?

Col S

Originally posted by Cols
Hi
Is anyone else having problems playing new CD's in their car. I've bought 2 recently that just play silence but work OK in the home players. The latest was the new Norah Jones CD. Seems to me that the manufacturers are selling product that does not fit the purpose. I've mailed EMI a complaint so I'll see what they say before taking it further. Anyone work for Trading Standards ?

Col S

many problems stem from the record companies trying to prevent cd's being copied on PC's, which read cd's differently from other cd players. unfortunately, this causes problems with some car stereos. one of their brainwaves was to introduce 'noise' to cd tracks. this works in the same way as dolby noise reduction. hiss and crackles are added to cd tracks, which can be filtered out by any hi-fi system with a suitable noise filter (virtually non except very expensive new hi-fi systems). literally thousands of albums were subjected to this and some singles (Elton John/Blue's 'Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word' for instance).

this was supposed to discourage cd piracy as the 'noise' is copied when the cd is mp3'd. however, it had the opposite effect as most people would rather pay £3-£5 for a copy with clicks, pops and crackles than shop prices for the same added noise. effectively they are conning the public by selling faulty cd's, but do the care? of course not.

what most people cannot understand is why the record companies are spending millions trying to stop downloading when they could reduce piracy overnight by bringing cd prices down to £5.

also the idiots who are masterminding this are targeting file sharing sites like Kazaa and Imesh when most new cd albums are downloaded from bulletin board sites like Streamload and IRC.

not sure if this answers your question, but what i am trying to say is you probably wont get any joy from EMI. the greedy fatcat record companies don't care about your inconvenience.

Also, a lot people I know, use their PC as a stereo. However, a lot of CDs won't play on them, so even when you are honest and buy a CD, you can't play it. I haven't used a stereo system for a long time. I use my PC hooked to speakers, through a very good soundcard. I also use my DVD player.
It is also annoying that by putting this noise on the CDs, you can't rip it to mp3 properly. For those people who don't file share, they might want to put their bought CDs on their PC as mp3 to reduce space, or burn a CD full of mp3s to play on the DVD player.
I'm not suprised people download.
The record industry needs to sort it out.

Maybe one day things will change. Everyone will subscribe to use the internet. Artists will get paid from that. Bit like the BBC. So they will get paid upfront to write an album and everyone can then download it, or listen via live stream to it for free when they want. I can see everything eventually going this way. Even TV stations, films etc etc.

The way I understand it is, if you have payed for the CD, you are legally entitled to own a backup of it, as the copyright laws refer to the actual music, not the physical disc.

It would not be illegal for you to download a copy from the internet and burn this to a CD to play in your car.

If that's wrong, then please correct me.

Originally posted by rarstar
The way I understand it is, if you have payed for the CD, you are legally entitled to own a backup of it, as the copyright laws refer to the actual music, not the physical disc.

It would not be illegal for you to download a copy from the internet and burn this to a CD to play in your car.

If that's wrong, then please correct me.

Nope, that's US law. Here in the UK, you have no right to copy a CD, or anything covered by copyright for that matter, even for backup purposes.

The only exception is recording a TV broadcast for later viewing, and we can only do that because Sony fought for that right in court back in the '80s. That would be the same Sony who are now trying to stop people copying stuff.

I love irony :)

I have the CD I downloaded from KAZAA and burnt it direct to CD...it plays in my car fine. be happy to burn you a copy.....

As for copyright law IT SUCKS!!!!

Hi
The CD plays fine in the PC but it just won't play in the car.
To be honest, I've no problem with copyright control and I'm not one for ripping off music but when I do buy a legit CD I expect it to work in ALL my cd players.
I'm a genuine music fan with over 400 (legal) CD's but this kind of thing makes you want to go out and ripp off music just to get back at them. Thanks for the offer of a copy but I "could" make my own copy for the car by connecting my CD player to my audio card and making a copy that way :)

Col S

Originally posted by goldenfleece
I have the CD I downloaded from KAZAA and burnt it direct to CD...it plays in my car fine. be happy to burn you a copy.....

As for copyright law IT SUCKS!!!!

OK but in 10 years time you might be regretting all your downloads as record companies will not be to afford to develop artists and musicians. Instead the charts and the industry will be taken over (way more than now) by pre-packaged marketed groups who can make quick money and dont need investment.

I download music to see if I like it but then I will go out and buy it, all more friends just download but I feel guilty!

What I don't get is that the Music Industry say that this is the end of albums/cd singles as we know it because everyone is downloading them off the net/copying cds.

But how is this different to tapes? Did they not say the same thing when tape recorders came out?

lets get this straight EVERYONE has always copied tapes and disks, like Videos....EVERYONE. There is no way of stopping it and never will be....and its no good trying to make people feel guilty as the music industry will be dead in a few years time, IT WONT as it still makes FAT CAT PROFITS TO MAKE YOUR HAIR CURL!!!

Who in any right mind will pay £9.99 for a CD in a shop when you an download it from one of many many peer to peer sites in 30 minutes with broadband and burn it direct to disc yourself? Who will pay £15.99 for a DVD when you can do the same and burn it to DVD-R? No me I tell you that...

If CDs and DVD's were priced FAIRLY( ie 75% lower!) and not just ripping off consumers downloading would cease....its the mass majority way of hitting back at the greedy fat cats milking the consumers for every penny they have......

If I like am album that someone has copied for me they I will buy the original. Probably not from Virgin for 15quid but from play.com or similar for 9.99 or if possible direct from the artists web site. I don't think people should take pride in ripping things off and people gloating about how many cd's they have copied is just childish.
For me is as much about respecting the artist as anything else. I don't listen to mainstream crap that's in the charts so I am happy to buy original work from original artists who have made an effort to produce something good. The likes of the New Banco de Gaia album out next month.. Yes I would be able to download it or copy it but for something that will give me hours of enjoyment and has taken a long time for the artist to produce I think thats very mean. For the price of about 4 pints at the local I think I can afford to buy it. Perhaps goldenfleece you should acknowledge that you are being a little bit selfish instead of putting all the blame on fat cat record companies.. Or at least have some consideration for the artist and his work. You seem to imply that you take pride in never buying any music. I also own copied cd's so not getting all moral on you but I think people should encorage artists. If your only reason for not buying cd's is because you are against the fat cats then try buying music direct or writing your own.

Perhaps goldenfleece you should acknowledge that you are being a little bit selfish instead of putting all the blame on fat cat record companies.. Or at least have some consideration for the artist and his work. You seem to imply that you take pride in never buying any music. I also own copied cd's so not getting all moral on you but I think people should encorage artists. If your only reason for not buying cd's is because you are against the fat cats then try buying music direct or writing your own. [/B]


Well if thats the case then so is most of the population of the world as I personally dont know anyone who still BUYS stuff....its all downloading and broadband and MP3, etc, etc. Has been for a while now...

Norality here is not the issue I am wanting to raise, I am simply stating what most people do, as its easier and now super fast with ADSL to get any album, classic or new and unreleased, easy on the net. ANd most also have mp3 players so they want to download direct to these devices.

I am not against the FAT CATS as such....but they do rip off artists and performers in a BIG way....a few extra 1000 or even 10,000 CD sales is not going to go to the performer....it will go straight to the record company swiss bank account. And that is a fact....

I happen to have a contact at one of the rather well known larger record companies who fiddle the royalties to their artists by doctoring all the sales records so the companies get to keep the so called royalty cash....it goes on all over the place and its largely unregulated. (The taxman might be interested in them as well actually) Take it from me, the poor performers will get NOTHING in further benefits.

I am not moralizing as such....this is just the way things are. Believe me, if I was sure the right % of the £9.99 price of a CD would actually get to the artists, I might feel differently, but from experience this simply is not the case these days.

So your justification for not buying CD's is that not enough money goes to the artist so you will deprive them of even more...
Very sad.
:loopy:

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
So your justification for not buying CD's is that not enough money goes to the artist so you will deprive them of even more...
Very sad.
:loopy:


not at all....I cant afford it...simple really

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
So your justification for not buying CD's is that not enough money goes to the artist so you will deprive them of even more...
Very sad.
:loopy:

So how do you explain the fact that Dido's Life For Rent Album was the biggest selling album for 10 years?

Didn't know it had been out ten years....

:P

Don't know if this applies to you Cols, but recently there was an item on BBC's Watchdog programme about playing CDs in car stereos.

Specifically it concerned newer Volkswagens..it seems that their stereos refuse to play certain CDs, meaning you have nice new car and can't play your CD collection. Apparently Volkswagen refused to do anything.

Isha
Thanks for bringing the subject back into line. It started off as a technical question but turned into a copyright thread. Anyway, the car is a Skoda Superb (Volkswagen Passat with a different badge on) so it has a Volkwagen audio system. I didn't see the program but I have done some digging round and found that the copy controlled CD's do not conform to the official "red book" standard and hence the problem. As mentioned before, I have played most of my CD collection in the car but it's only the copy controlled CD's that cause a problem. Even then, it's not all of them. Bare - Annie Lennox plays fine despite being a copy controlled CD. I'll keep pestering EMI and see what they say.
Regards

Col S

Originally posted by Cols
Isha
Thanks for bringing the subject back into line. It started off as a technical question but turned into a copyright thread.
Col S

a mod in the making.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
As for copyright law IT SUCKS!!!!
Why does it? You want a cd you pay for it, simple as that.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
If CDs and DVD's were priced FAIRLY( ie 75% lower!) and not just ripping off consumers downloading would cease....
I want a Porsche but greedy fat cat car companies charge too much. Is it alright to go out and steal one?

We're all extremely aware how corrupt most industries are, but i find it disgusting how most people can excuse such blatant theft just because its only a recording. Your not copying, your not downloading, use the right terms - you are stealing. No more, no less.

Chris.

Call it what you like. The analogy with a PORSCHE is totally ludicrous and irrelevant. Everyone downloads music so everyone is a theif? CRAP!

Originally posted by Killian
So how do you explain the fact that Dido's Life For Rent Album was the biggest selling album for 10 years?

never found it available for downloading anywhere..thats why!

Originally posted by goldenfleece
Call it what you like. The analogy with a PORSCHE is totally ludicrous and irrelevant. Everyone downloads music so everyone is a theif? CRAP!

It's not irrelevant - its a fair point. Why do you feel you have the right to download free music?

If you have the right to get albums without paying for them, why not apply that logic to everything?



Apologies for contributing to this off-topic-topic, but I'm with you on that one, Chris.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
Call it what you like.
I'll call it the same as common law calls it - stealing.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
The analogy with a PORSCHE is totally ludicrous and irrelevant..
Car companies invest money and create a product - cars.
Record companies invest money and create a product - records.
You steal a record the record company doesn't get the money back. Point out where exactly that becomes ludicrous or irelevant and i'll eat my hat.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
Everyone downloads music so everyone is a theif? CRAP!
I don't download music.

Chris.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
Everyone downloads music so everyone is a theif?

I don't.

Well there is a complex argument at work here. Firstly a PORSCHE is a physical product, a stand alone single item costing £30K plus, right? You cant "copy" it or reproduce it from home.....it has no interllectual property value, it is simply a car with a market value as a purely physical product...

A CD is different....when you buy a CD you physically own that CD...which logically means you own all the content of that CD. Th way the law tries to make out that you dont own the CD you have just bought, or that the contents are different to the physical medium, is a pile of doggy poo. Interllectual property simply does not exist.....you cant own something which is invisible. The owner of the work cant impose his rights upon you unless you RENT the CD or item....then he can make an argument.

Same with DVD's.....if u buy a disk you are buying the disk lock stock and barrel....like when you buy a car, it is yours to sell or keep and use as you see fit. Everyone backs up DVD's in case the master getsb damaged, and everyone passes copies onto their friends. I know of no exceptions to this at all. WHo needs all that fancy packaging anyway!! (packaging comes under TRADE MARK law which is totally different and far to complex to be discussed here)


I am actually in the legal profession and the law is an ass on this, both in the UK and especially the USA. You CANNOT control something which you cannot touch or see as a solid object....ie, music exists as a series of digital impulses....you can store it on disk, tape or vinyl or whatever......it is rediculous to try and claim it belongs to you if someone else owns the physical medium on which it is carried.

Ask any lawyer to logically explain about intellectual property rights and you will get a big groan and a sharp exit.....its worth lots of money to lawyers....and that is all!!!

Originally posted by goldenfleece
Well there is a complex argument at work here.
That argument where people steal cd's and don't pay for them? Its terrible really. :rolleyes:

Chris.

Give up chris, and everyone else. Goldenfleece has all the answers you can't win an argument with someone one like that.. Lets hope he is one of the poeople who gets taken to court and we can see how far his wonderful justification gets him.

Perhaps it is...taking a "moral" view. However, the record industry acceopt the situation and now live with it....they know they cant stop it, and their feeble attempts at copy protection dont work. Same with DVD's, free software like DVD SHRINK will copy any DVD whatever protection it has. Similar software allows you to copy any copy protected CD.


I am not entering into a moral argument, just stating the facts. There is no point in moralizing as 99% of music downloaders dont give a toss about copyright, and if they can get it free, they will do. It is NOT stealing.....to steal something you have to obtain by deception, ie claim to be someone you are not, etc, or enter a property, break and enter, obtain by force, etc....you cant "steal" the contents of a CD unless you intend to set up a CD plant and sell the copies yourself (a totally different argument).

I am actually in the legal profession

Yes, a selfish thief???

Come on all you music downloaders, I know there are millions of you around the world.....have your say about this.

To download for your personal use is NOT A CRIME. The only crime occurs if you RE-DISTRIBUTE the product for commercial gain

Originally posted by goldenfleece
It is NOT stealing....
I prefer to call it "borrowing".

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
... you can't win an argument with someone one like that.
Of course i can. I'm in the right so i've won straight away. My glory knows no bounds. :P

Chris.

Okay - stupid situations but valid points coming up:

If we had some form of replicating device (like out of Star Trek or whatever) and we could exactly replicate a fully functional Porsche, would it be acceptable (in your opinion) for everybody to replicate their own Porsche?


Also, what about if I copied a famous peice of Artwork and called it my own?
The original artist doesn't own the canvas on which I have chosen to print a complete copy of their masterpiece, so do they have no legal or moral standpoint? have they no right to try and protect their intellectual property?

Originally posted by goldenfleece
Come on all you music downloaders, I know there are millions of you around the world.....

Ha ha.
Shoplifters of the world unite! :D

Chris.

Originally posted by jackthedog
Okay - stupid situations but valid points coming up:

If we had some form of replicating device (like out of Star Trek or whatever) and we could exactly replicate a fully functional Porsche, would it be acceptable (in your opinion) for everybody to replicate their own Porsche?
Also, what about if I copied a famous peice of Artwork and called it my own? The original artist doesn't own the canvas on which I have chosen to print a complete copy of their masterpiece, so do they have no legal or moral standpoint? have they no right to try and protect their intellectual property?


on the first point, if it ever was possible, then it would not be a crime if it was for additional "personal use". The only crime might be infringement of the trademark of PORSCHE....a totally different concept...if you stripped off the trademark, then since the copy was NOT built by them, theoretically you could make as many as you wanted for personal use......

Passing yourself off as an artist or musician, or indeed passing off work as your OWN CREATION when it was CREATED by someone else is an offence. BUT...just to copy the work and NOT claim to be the CREATOR is very different....if you copied the MONA LISA and tried to sell it as the original, that is a crime.....selling LOOKALIKE copies is NOT an offence unless the painting itself is a registered trademark.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
never found it available for downloading anywhere..thats why!

you're obviously not looking on the correct sites. forget file sharing and try bulleting boards. my heart does bleed for the poor old artists. because of people downloading, Robbie Williams only managed an advance on his Escapology album of a paltry 80 million. come on people, be fair, how on earth do you expect Robbie to survive on that?

Originally posted by Killian
you're obviously not looking on the correct sites. forget file sharing and try bulleting boards. my heart does bleed for the poor old artists. because of people downloading, Robbie Williams only managed an advance on his Escapology album of a paltry 80 million. come on people, be fair, how on earth do you expect Robbie to survive on that?

Robbie Williams sucks though.

He sucked in Take That, and he still sucks now that he sings solo.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
Everyone downloads music so everyone is a theif?

Yes.

80 million advance for Robbie? Thats just peanuts to him....a few nights out on the town....you're right...how can he survive on that sort of miserable advance.....

I agree, Mr Williams is not very talented.....

Talented or not, it's still HIS music that you're not paying for.

I would not download a Robbie WIlliams album if HE PAID ME (unless it was 80 million of course)

I am sure a mere £11.99 for one of his crap CD;s will contribute sooooo much to his meagre bank balance.....

Ah, artists are sooooo poor, soooooo living on the breadline.....my heart goes out to them in their 20 bedroomed mansions having only the odd million or so a day to live on.....

the thing is record companies want it cant make there mind up on some cds theres multi media content and videos etc now the odd disc is copy controlled maybe we should write to the record companies and tell them to make up there mind.......:loopy:

i admit to downloading the odd track or 3 on the internet but its always live tracks remixes megamixes what you cant get in the shops anyway so can you call me a thief ?
:loopy:

you can cal me a thief if you like. i will continue downloading untill cd prices are brought down to a more relaistic price like £5. then i will stop downloading completely and keep you happy, Tony. in fact, i am going to download even more now on a point of principle.

Originally posted by Killian
you can cal me a thief if you like. i will continue downloading untill cd prices are brought down to a more relaistic price like £5. then i will stop downloading completely and keep you happy, Tony. in fact, i am going to download even more now on a point of principle.

WELL SAID. I 100% AGREE

Just a note but these new protected discs are not CD's - Philips who created the Compact Disc won't let anyone put the Compact Disc logo on any disc that is copy protected as they aren't guaranteed to work on a Compact Disc drive.

As for being able to copy them - when you buy music you should be paying for the right to listen to it whatever media it is on be it cd, cassette, mp3 etc. should be irrelevant. If you've paid for it once you should be able to have it on all 3 formats if you want without further charge.

Originally posted by Killian
you can cal me a thief if you like. i will continue downloading untill cd prices are brought down to a more relaistic price like £5. then i will stop downloading completely and keep you happy, Tony. in fact, i am going to download even more now on a point of principle.

So is you're illegal downloading going to reduce the price of CD's to £5? I don't think so. It's still copyright theft, regardless of the price of CD's (Which I agree are too expensive). You will be glad to know that the music industry is setting up spoof download sites and harvesting IP addresses so they can prosecute.

Originally posted by goldenfleece
I agree, Mr Williams is not very talented.....

In all honestly how can you say that? Robbie Williams is hugely talented. That doesn't mean to say that you have to like his msic to appreciate it.

Remember six years ago when David Bowie borrowed £33 million from bond investors in return for a 7.9% interest from the royalties on his back catalogue? (course you do).

Those bonds are now said to have sunk to "near junk" status.
The blame is being laid equally at downloading websites and problems at his record company EMI.

Too bad for the investors, but I don't think Bowie will starve somehow.

Originally posted by Killian
in fact, i am going to download even more now on a point of principle.
You rebel.

---------

My problem with downloading as nothing to do with Robbie Williams. He is a major act on a major label, both of them rolling in enough money as it is.

What i dislike is when people are downloading from smaller artists and labels, because that is where the problems lie. Record company advances have to be paid back before the artists can start earning money, and that can be hard enough has it is. An advance is not even what it claims to be, its not a huge pay packet before you've done any work. They have things like styling, recording, touring, equipment to pay for before they can take any money away to live off. A band like Kings Of Leon are only now, after two years as a signed act, starting to earn any money back to pay their advance off, and they had a big selling album really.
The simple fact of all this is that if you download an album the record company never sees a return on its investment, the artists don't make any money and we all lose. Its very straight forward and there is no way of talking your way around it. If they stop getting money they'll just stop investing in new acts, thats my problem.

You crudely mention Robbie Williams where he is the one big example of downloading not really affecting his paycheck. Its naive to think everyone in music is super-rich, 90% of bands are just making a living.

Chris.

Ah, but there is also the argument that if people download music to check it out, music they wouldn't have bought at full rip off price to check out, then thay are getting exposed to new bands that they otherwise would not have heard. So you've downloaded it for free and can now listen at your leisure. Now supposing you really like that album, that you would never have had the chance to because you wouldn't have risked buying it, and you start recommending it to people. The people you recommend it to might buy it, or they might download it. Slowly that band starts getting mentioned more and more to the point that they start getting a big fan base. That band will then start making money through touring and headlining at festivals. They will get paid to appear. People will buy merchandise. The bands will then get paid to have their videos played on music channels through demand and also make money from radio play. They may then get asked to sponser a make of clothes or make personal appearances on TV for which they get paid in order to get ratings up on TV prog and make money for the company that makes the product they advertise.
You work out the maths. That band might not be where they are if it hadn't been for people downloading their album to check it out.

I personally have downloaded music and ended up buying the original CD, or I've ended up paying money to see them live etc.

In effect it cuts out the middle man or the fat cat music companies. Music should be about the music. If a band or solo artict is good, people will get into it in some shape or form through word of mouth.
Most of the music industry these days, is about producing crap that gets stupid amounts of money spent on advertising it, to get that number 1 single. Most of these artists are unfortunately manufactured crap aimed at teenage girls. Call that music? You'll find that alot of credible artists have got to where they've got to by touring and working their asses off picking up fans and making money this way. Alot of these artists actually don't mind the fact that they have gained more fans and therefore free advertising through the fact that people downloaded their music.

Originally posted by Tony
So is you're illegal downloading going to reduce the price of CD's to £5? I don't think so. It's still copyright theft, regardless of the price of CD's (Which I agree are too expensive). You will be glad to know that the music industry is setting up spoof download sites and harvesting IP addresses so they can prosecute.

i only use bulletin boards, so it won't affect me, but thanks for your concern.

I like to help! :)

Originally posted by Tony
I like to help! :)

many thanks again. all i'd like to know is why the record companies are prepared to spend millions trying to stop downloading and copying, but are not prepared to bring the price of cd's down to £5, which would stop most downloading and increase sales. surely this is a fair question to ask. just what is their problem exactly?

It's a very fair question. I think that they have been used to monopolies for so long that they are finding it difficult to adapt to the new tech's and all that goes with them. Maybe they are a dying breed with outdated business models, and this is their death throe?

Trouble is people say "i'll stop when...." but when/if it does happen you'll start downloading again because you'll complain that the CDs at £5 are too expensive.

As for my opinion, heck I own a shedload of MP3s.... however they are self ripped and I do it for sheer laziness and choice :P
(ie. I cant be bothered to change CDs when Ive can listen to it on MP3)

But... I dont download tracks (unless I own them on say Vinyl and cant rip em! :cry: )

no £5, would suit me fine, but there is still a case for donwloading. i loved an 80's electro band called Freur. before going online, i tried everywhere to get tracks from this band, but to no avail. logged on to the web and found them on Audio Galaxy. and what about making up a compilation album of favourite songs which are from a range of different albums or otherwise obscure sources (as Freur). 20 tracks on a cd. how much would it cost to trek around and purchase 20 different albums which you don't even want, simply to make up your own compilation of favourite songs?

Originally posted by Foxxx
Slowly that band starts getting mentioned more and more to the point that they start getting a big fan base. That band will then start making money through touring and headlining at festivals.
One big huge problem - touring is a non-profit exercise to promote the album. Who pays for it? The record company, thats who. Yet another part of a bands advance. Only huge acts like Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Paul McArtney (where its £50+ a ticket) are making any money off touring.

Plus, no band/artist is ever going to headline a festival until they are huge, and at what point does that happen if nobody buys their music? There are some huge flaws in your case.

Originally posted by Killian
all i'd like to know is why the record companies are prepared to spend millions trying to stop downloading and copying, but are not prepared to bring the price of cd's down to £5 [...]?
Because they're idiots. While i agree £16-£17 is a lot for an album its been years since i paid more than a tenner for an album. There are numerous shops in town (Fopp) and online (cdwow) that make buying albums cheaper than HMV, so why not shop there?

Chris.

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps
Because they're idiots. While i agree £16-£17 is a lot for an album its been years since i paid more than a tenner for an album. There are numerous shops in town (Fopp) and online (cdwow) that make buying albums cheaper than HMV, so why not shop there?

Chris.

They don't sell everything I want :)

Originally posted by Chris_Sleeps

Because they're idiots. While i agree £16-£17 is a lot for an album its been years since i paid more than a tenner for an album. There are numerous shops in town (Fopp) and online (cdwow) that make buying albums cheaper than HMV, so why not shop there?

Chris.

i read somewhere that the record companies are trying to stop these online shops selling cheap cd's. smacks of greed to me.

Originally posted by Killian
i read somewhere that the record companies are trying to stop these online shops selling cheap cd's. smacks of greed to me.

Yep because they are buying them aboard then selling them in this country, like Tescos did with Levi jeans. I think CDwow has been stopped from doing it.

Originally posted by qazitory
Yep because they are buying them aboard then selling them in this country, like Tescos did with Levi jeans. I think CDwow has been stopped from doing it.

oh. i see, so its only people in this country who are being ripped off? nothing new there then.

That sounds like a restriction of free trade to me. :mad:

Originally posted by Tony
That sounds like a restriction of free trade to me. :mad:

free trade seems only to apply to things we dont actually want. anything we get enjoyment from appears to be exempt from this.

I think, and I may be wrong here, but the copy control CDs are considered "non standard", and can't have the "compact disc" logo on the case.

Originally posted by SusieP
I think, and I may be wrong here, but the copy control CDs are considered "non standard", and can't have the "compact disc" logo on the case.

Already pointed that out.

The revolution started with Napster, and it's never looked like stopping since. You can't put the cat back in the bag by appealing to people's conscience: you provide them with a product that's superior at a price that makes it worth their while not to download illegally.

It's called itunes, and it's proving to be extremely successful in the States.

But it's not available here (in terms of being able to purchase a huge library of tracks). Instead, we have a multitude of bad websites (for example, mycokemusic, a site that didn't even work on its launch date) offering a severely restricted choice of downloads.

The record companies' reaction to what every idiot saw as an inevitability has been incredible. Is suing their own customers and arguing with each other, rather than coming up with ideas that incorporate new technologies, a solution that will improve their fortunes? Or will their myopia and indecision, along with the increasing number of artists using their own personal websites to market and sell their music, mean that the record company as we know it will soon become a complete irrelevance anyway? Answers on a postcard.

PS. I've always wondered how much money Sony make from CD/DVD writers and blank CD-Rs...