CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319276,00.html

Check this out, apparently using your iPod for anything you didn't buy off of iTunes is illegal. Got a CD you want to rip for your player? Too bad, that is illegal.

This is a load of junk. If they keep doing stuff like this they are going to lose business. I for one am sick of this "more money" junk. They don't realize that they would sell more records if they stopped with the DRM and priced songs reasonably. It's not brain surgery, iTunes is doing very well.

Hearing stuff like this makes me want to download everything off of limewire just to make sure they don't get any money for it.

My gosh, these music companies are sinking lower and lower in my book.

My iPod should be arrested

That's just crappy. What a load of horse manure.

So apparently, they're trying to sue people for doing something that's completely legal.

This is why the RIAA is stupid.

But...but...if that were the case, then why a need for the "File>Add File to Library"?

*grumbles*

And why then would it ask if you want to import cds when you put a cd in it's drive?

*grumbles in confusion*

Because everyone up till now saw no problem with ripping a CD you bought so you could use it on YOUR MP3 player.

They are being greedy. They just want money and they are mad that we are not paying for EVERY copy of the music we make.

Moved to the music board.

Sorry 'bout that, I though maybe it should go here, but given it's nature wasn't sure.

This is utterly absurd. I also didn't think the RIAA would resort to such insanity. I already don't buy (or even listen to) American music, but now I'm definitely not going to, if the money's going into their hands.

I just wonder when someone's finally going to stand up and tell them they've gone too far.

You'd think these companies like making money. They'd just make people want to be even more sneaky

Basically, this just makes me want to only download music and not give any of my money to the RIAA. That's just ridiculous. There's got to be a line somewhere regarding this, and telling people that ripping their own purchased CDs to their MP3 players crosses that, I think.

Whatever. My CDs are my property, and I'll do with them what I wish. XD

I'm just glad that it's becoming both more viable and more popular for bands to remain on independent record labels.

Someday the RIAA is going to ask for money for every time you listen to a song.

And you're giving them ideas

Say bye-bye to radio XD

B.S. to all that. If you're copying music to your own iPod, it's for your own use.

Shao Feng-Li (post: 1188674) wrote:And you're giving them ideas

Say bye-bye to radio XD

"All we hear is, not-radio ga-ga, not-radio goo-goo, not-radio ga-ga. . ."

AH CRAP THE RIAA AND QUEEN ARE SUING ME FOR INFRINGEMENT

D:

[/random]

But seriously. . . this freakin' SUCKS.

Its times like this I wish the Punk rock movement succeeded with its scheme to destroy the record industry. The RIAA is quite foolish if they really want to pursue this direction of assault. One of the saving graces of the CD in this age of digital media is that very ability to make high quality copies onto one's computer for use on the Ipod or other MP3 players while retaining a physical copy for personal use and backup. If they really want to pursue this course of action aggressively it is likely to singlehandedly destroy the market viability of the CD and put the ball squarely in digital media's court, which is dangerous for them because they would no longer have the market leverage of control over the means of production.

See... This is exactly why I hate Ipods. I buy CD's, I still carry around a portable CD player, I rip the music to my computer and back it up twice on my external. I have avoided the stupidity of MP3 players because this is exactly what I thought would happen. People are just going to use it as an excuse to download everything. It makes the whole process so much more tempting, and once downloaded, only a few will go back and pay for a CD they can't even use.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

I hate MP3 players for this reason.

ok.. rant over.. Instead of just downloading all your music because of what one distributer is doing, just bloody buy the CD's and ignore the stupidity of Ipod.

25$ for a CD really isn't unreasonable.

Why is anyone taking this seriously? According to the article, ONE lawyer for "the big four" has CLAIMED this is grounds for a lawsuit.

Prosecuting attorneys, as slimy as they may be, don't make the laws - that's congress' job.



People in my city have been sued for their coloring their hair - under the guise of "misrepresentation."

To quote one of the great philosophers of our time: "I sued Ben Afleck. Aww! Do I even need a reason!"

Tyrel (post: 1188710) wrote:See... This is exactly why I hate Ipods. I buy CD's, I still carry around a portable CD player, I rip the music to my computer and back it up twice on my external. I have avoided the stupidity of MP3 players because this is exactly what I thought would happen. People are just going to use it as an excuse to download everything. It makes the whole process so much more tempting, and once downloaded, only a few will go back and pay for a CD they can't even use.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

I hate MP3 players for this reason.

ok.. rant over.. Instead of just downloading all your music because of what one distributer is doing, just bloody buy the CD's and ignore the stupidity of Ipod.

25$ for a CD really isn't unreasonable.

So wait... you hate mp3 players... why? (Technically they are not called mp3 players because mp3 is just an audio format, and many digital media players can other alternate audio files like .wma, mpeg, .aac, .ogg, etc) I mean they're a good technological advancement. They have the capacity to hold like 100 times the amount a regular CD can hold. Besides, what's not stopping you from using a CD-RW to use downloaded/ripped mp3 files then playing them on your Portable CD player?

25 dollars for a CD is unreasonable. CDs themselves cost like less than 10 cents. 25 dollars for copies of the songs that may be on a cd are probably worth more depending on your tastes in music, however. There is no difference between buying songs online and buying songs. In the end, you're still paying for a copy of the song.

Tyrel (post: 1188710) wrote:25$ for a CD really isn't unreasonable.

Perhaps not for you, but in my mind, it is.

I assume the typical 1$ a song (as per digital pricing) + the cost of manufacturing is around 10-15$, depending on the CD. Which is exactly what I intend to pay. I buy CDs all the time. Not once have I spent 25$ on a CD that did not include physical extras. It seems absurd to me to pay more, unless the excess were to go directly to the band itself.

Secondly, I don't believe that iPods made the process any more tempting. Considering that you have been able to just burn the music to CDs of your own for years now anyways. Besides, iTunes is so integrated into iPod that many people are switching over to legal downloads anyways.

Cognitive Gear (post: 1188719) wrote::eh:
Perhaps not for you, but in my mind, it is.

I assume the typical 1$ a song (as per digital pricing) + the cost of manufacturing is around 10-15$, depending on the CD. Which is exactly what I intend to pay. I buy CDs all the time. Not once have I spent 25$ on a CD that did not include physical extras. It seems absurd to me to pay more, unless the excess were to go directly to the band itself.

Secondly, I don't believe that iPods made the process any more tempting. Considering that you have been able to just burn the music to CDs of your own for years now anyways. Besides, iTunes is so integrated into iPod that many people are switching over to legal downloads anyways.

yeah, I was ranting.

But no, on a serious note, I think people complain a tad too much about CD Prices, and I think it's because they don't really appreciate music nearly as much as they could. I mean, when I get a CD, I listen to it and appreciate each song. I give it a good 5 listens and then form an opinion of it. If you get a good Album, it should be worth about 20$. I find a good CD priced at $15 with Tax included {I always include the tax when I talk about the price}, and I'm ecstatic.

Now, while I understand the merits of the Ipod and Itunes marketing, I have never appreciate the movement from CD players to MP3, just in principle. This is because it does change the mainstream medium of music. MP3 players more often than CD players, have the effect of ignoring the value of an Album as a whole, and it simply enforces downloading selections of the popular. When somebody downloads a song from one group they heard from a friend or on the radio, I find they are less likely to appreciate the band rather than the song, and thus won't really follow through with buying or even checking out the album. Note that most of the work goes into the put together of the Album in the studio, not just the mixing, but also the order of the songs, and the vibe of the whole thing.

Now, I'm not actually anti MP3 or even anti-Downloading. I simply perceive a problem. Even with ways to pay for music online, you are missing all the art of the CD cover and pamphlet, and perhaps even missing the whole message of an Album. I think that's what the effect of the MP3 players have had over all. I agree that it was clever to make purchasing songs so easy and it was a great marketing move. However, I think that dumb moves like this WILL push people to simply download and go even further away from actually purchasing and appreciating the CD.

This, to be clear, is a personal pet peeve, not something I'm going to point my finger to others about. It's simply something that has always annoyed me. When people tell me I should just get an MP3 player and stop spending needlessly on CD's, it makes me out to be some fiend who wastes money on stupid things, like a drunk spends money on boose.

I don't have any hesitation in saying, though, that burning a CD with downloaded music was not as big a problem for the industry as the MP3 players.. though, again, I admit that Itunes has a pretty clever set up.

Tyrel wrote:25$ for a CD really isn't unreasonable.

I pay anywhere from 9-13 dollars for a CD from Best Buy. I pay $16 at MOST from other stores.

$25 is WAY too much for a CD. XD

Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1188717) wrote:So wait... you hate mp3 players... why? (Technically they are not called mp3 players because mp3 is just an audio format, and many digital media players can other alternate audio files like .wma, mpeg, .aac, .ogg, etc) I mean they're a good technological advancement. They have the capacity to hold like 100 times the amount a regular CD can hold. Besides, what's not stopping you from using a CD-RW to use downloaded/ripped mp3 files then playing them on your Portable CD player?

25 dollars for a CD is unreasonable. CDs themselves cost like less than 10 cents. 25 dollars for copies of the songs that may be on a cd are probably worth more depending on your tastes in music, however. There is no difference between buying songs online and buying songs. In the end, you're still paying for a copy of the song.

Oops, I missed your post.

Well, I sort of said this above, but I'll repeat just to clarify; I never appreciated the movement from CD to MP3 {or any other downloadable format, I'm just using MP3 because it was and probably remains the most common}. This isn't because it's hindering me in any way. I simply don't like the way things seem to be going for the Music industry.

Also, I should point out... CD's being worth only 10 Cents is quite the Myth indeed. The Studio time the Bands use and the time put into writing their songs, and the time put in to ensuring that the music is really up to par and the days and days of mixing, and then the Label making deals and previewing the release, and the work put into organizing/negotiating what tour(s) the band is going to have the priveledge of going on.. all these things.. the Months and Months put into thinking up the themes and working with the manager and all other aspects.. The Artwork produced for the CD itself, including the pamphlet..

These are not worth 10 Cents.. The plastic Disk we record all the stuff on, along with the packaging, is perhaps 10 Cents.

You also have to remember that the money isn't simply supposed to cover the album's production, or else nobody would survive to make another album. No, the money is to supply the artists and the label with their due, so that they can continue to grow, and stay on the scene.

To be clear though, I'm not picking any sort of a fight. This isn't something I would ever get rowdy about, and a heated debate on the topic is laughable to me. Just the same, I'm just putting my 2 cents out there.

Radical Dreamer (post: 1188726) wrote:I pay anywhere from 9-13 dollars for a CD from Best Buy. I pay $16 at MOST from other stores.

$25 is WAY too much for a CD. XD

Ok ok, I suppose $25 is a bit of a strain for most people. With Tax, what would you say to a $20?

For me, I work at a place where I can get the CD's for a good price, and I purposely always pay at least $20 per CD, unless the sale price is something like $5.

Tyrel wrote:Ok ok, I suppose $25 is a bit of a strain for most people. With Tax, what would you say to a $20?

For me, I work at a place where I can get the CD's for a good price, and I purposely always pay at least $20 per CD, unless the sale price is something like $5.

I actually just realized your location says you're in Canada. XD And now I'm curious as to the exchange rates. While you're paying 20, it might be that those of us in the US are paying 9-13, like I suggested. If that's the case, then my last post is almost moot, except I still wouldn't pay $25 for a CD. XDD Then again, most CDs I buy are from indie bands and less mainstream music, so that could have something to do with it as well.

Radical Dreamer (post: 1188735) wrote:I actually just realized your location says you're in Canada. XD And now I'm curious as to the exchange rates. While you're paying 20, it might be that those of us in the US are paying 9-13, like I suggested. If that's the case, then my last post is almost moot, except I still wouldn't pay $25 for a CD. XDD Then again, most CDs I buy are from indie bands and less mainstream music, so that could have something to do with it as well.

Yeah, I'm in Canada, but that doesn't make any real significant difference. Our economy is largely tied to the American Economy. Though, for the past few months our dollar was worth more than yours, it goes up and down, but not really substantially. {I'm assuming you're American even though your filled out location is just a witty comment}

But the fact that you're buying Indie bands might have something to do with it.

Tyrel (post: 1188730) wrote:Ok ok, I suppose $25 is a bit of a strain for most people. With Tax, what would you say to a $20?

For me, I work at a place where I can get the CD's for a good price, and I purposely always pay at least $20 per CD, unless the sale price is something like $5.

For a single CD with maybe twelve tracks, three of which I might listen to? Yeah, twenty bucks is too much. I'll pay the money on bands that I like (Muse! Dream Theater!) but I won't pay twenty smackers for something I'm not even sure I'll like. Even with the abbility to sample songs in store I've still come home too many times recently with CDs I ended up hating. I'd rather pay the 99 cents on iTunes and call it good. besides which, I do more than put them on my iPod. I too have a big thing of CDs that I keep with me... Many of them are just burned CDs.

Tyrel (post: 1188727) wrote:No, the money is to supply the artists and the label with their due, so that they can continue to grow, and stay on the scene.

Eh, you're kind of wrong there. The money you spend for CDs don't go to the artist at all, well... maybe like 10% of it does. It actually goes to the record company. Buying CDs doesn't help the artist out that much. It's their contract with the record company that does, and the record company makes tenfold of what they offer to the artists. So the whole "By cds to support the industry!" isn't as black and white as you may think. In fact, mp3s are actually helping the industry. Indie artists are able to get their name out and get popular, more music is exposed between friends which in turn buy the same albums, (or copy them, lol) and are way more convenient and efficient then CDs. Just take a look at iTunes.

It's a shame, really. It's a shame that artists can't get the money they deserve because record companies like to reap the benefits.

It's the same with videogame publishers. Some game company like Bungie or Infinity Ward releases an extremely popular game, but it's Microsoft and Activision that get all the profits, not the developers. I feel much more content buying music or a game if I know that my money is going to the artist or developers rather than some greedy middle-man. I like knowing that my money is going to the masterminds behind the game, not someone who let me acquire it. They developed it, they deserve the majority of the profit.

CDs are getting obsolete. Digital media files are the way to go.

Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1188763) wrote:Eh, you're kind of wrong there. The money you spend for CDs don't go to the artist at all, well... maybe like 10% of it does. It actually goes to the record company. Buying CDs doesn't help the artist out that much. It's their contract with the record company that does, and the record company makes tenfold of what they offer to the artists. So the whole "By cds to support the industry!" isn't as black and white as you may think.

This is very true. The only way the artists get the money is if you go to their shows and buy the CDs and merchandise there. Otherwise, most of the money you spend goes to the record label.

Etoh*the*Greato (post: 1188762) wrote:For a single CD with maybe twelve tracks, three of which I might listen to? Yeah, twenty bucks is too much. I'll pay the money on bands that I like (Muse! Dream Theater!) but I won't pay twenty smackers for something I'm not even sure I'll like. Even with the abbility to sample songs in store I've still come home too many times recently with CDs I ended up hating. I'd rather pay the 99 cents on iTunes and call it good. besides which, I do more than put them on my iPod. I too have a big thing of CDs that I keep with me... Many of them are just burned CDs.

ah, well, see, that's the thing about it. If you get a CD from a good band, whose music you enjoy, then generally if you give the Album an honest try you will actually appreciate it much much more than you may have expected.

To tell you the truth, I find that, usually, if I only sample part of an album, and then get it without knowing the songs, there is a sort of pleasant surprise and thrill that comes with listening to the whole CD from beginning to end for the first time. In my experience, though I do sample CD's fully all the time, listening to a CD you know you're going to enjoy only once it's purchased, actually helps me recognize how good it actually is, and I end up appreciating it much much more. I think it's sad when people buy a CD and say they only appreciate 5-8 songs on it. I think I appreciate just about every single instant of all my albums. Sure, after a while I have my "favorites", but I generally have a full appreciation for the whole album and the band before that happens.

Mr. SmartyPants (post: 1188763) wrote:Eh, you're kind of wrong there. The money you spend for CDs don't go to the artist at all, well... maybe like 10% of it does. It actually goes to the record company. Buying CDs doesn't help the artist out that much. It's their contract with the record company that does, and the record company makes tenfold of what they offer to the artists. So the whole "By cds to support the industry!" isn't as black and white as you may think.

It's a shame, really. It's a shame that artists can't get the money they deserve because record companies like to reap the benefits.

It's the same with videogame publishers. Some game company like Bungie or Infinity Ward releases an extremely popular game, but it's Microsoft and Activision that get all the profits, not the developers. I feel much more content buying music or a game if I know that my money is going to the artist or developers rather than some greedy middle-man.

maybe you misunderstood me

I know that the record company gets most of the money, but that's not a problem. The Band only stays alive BECAUSE the record label is making that money off of them. If the band is not worth it, the Label won't support them. Also, I don't feel that the money has to go to the artists themselves. I don't even know if I understand people's tendency to want that. The Label is the one that did most of the work necessary and made the album possible, along with publicizing it. The money is being distributed just fine. Notice most bands don't complain about not having enough money, especially those signed by well known labels. The better the label they are on, the more money they get, not as a % of the paycut, but just as raw cash.

In the end, you purchase a CD, you're supporting the industry. It's fairly black and white.

{again, I'm not exactly foaming at the mouth about this, I'm just saying}

You're not supporting the industry as much as you think. Your money is going to the record label, and they'll continue to bring out more CDs. But CDs are slowly dying out, just like Records and VHS has. Not to mention that record labels like to put a lot of limitations on the artist and what they can and can't do.

Since everything is now via internet and downloadable content, I soon hope that the need record companies diminishes. I hope that one day artists will be able to sell their stuff over the internet, thus taking away the need for the fools that is the RIAA along with record labels.