By Bill Royle, Techfocus

One the way home the other day, I threw a CD into the CD player. About halfways through, the CD suddenly started skipping - scratched. Thinking back, I realized that I hadn't made a backup copy of the CD when I purchased it, so I grumbled about having to go out and get another copy if I really wanted to. Then I started thinking about the 'Fair Use' doctrine. This brought some questions to mind ...

If the music industry incorporates copy protection so we can't make a backup copy, it is common sense that they must provide some sort of warranty process. However, in examining the particular CD that I've found the scratch on, I don't see anything of the sort. Does an absence of a stated warranty absolve a manufacturer of responsibility that there's a reasonable expectation of lifespan? Not in other industries. Therefore, if the RIAA wants to restrict our ability to make a backup copy of a CD, the burden of compliance under 'Fair Use' should fall on them, it seems.

Based on the lack of stated warranty, a consumer can have a reasonable expectation that product failures (not caused by misuse) are entitled to a backup or replacement. Under that premise, it seems to me that any scratched CDs should be eligible for replacement by the vendor or governing organization. As no term date is stated (at least on the CD case and disc that I'm looking at,) claiming that the warranty has expired is moot as well.

Therefore, I want to throw this out for discussion:

If we're not allowed to make a backup copy due to copy-protection measures on a CD, shouldn't we be shipping our scratched CD's back for warranty replacement? How many scratched CD's does the average music user have? I've got about 15 from the past few years - multiply that by 58 million. That's a lot of Fedex shipments. Sounds like an effective way to make a point, even if you only get a fraction of those 58 million people participating.

Thoughts?

Wow, that is an amazing, amazing point.

The CD would never have gotten scratched if you took it out of it's protective cover. Once it leaves it's protective cover, all bets are off. Remember, you're not supposed to listen to the CD. You're supposed to give them your money continously, ask no questions, and raise no eybrows. If you use the CD, whoa bud, that's your problem.

I was helping my dad clean out his shed recently and came accross a box full of 8-tracks from my college days.

Maybe I should send those in as well, eh --

Bill, I agree with you 100%!

dgtzr- you put it exactly how it seems to be, unfortunately!

Great point, but you must remember this - the RIAA is clearly not interested in customer satisfaction.

Why would they even think about pleasing the customer when it is much more profitable in the short-term (and only in the short-term, this is a culture of instant gratification, after all) to screw the customer over?

The RIAA does not want you to make backup copies. They want you to buy a CD again if it happens to get damaged, most likely at a higher price than you originally paid for it (they always seem to get more pricy as days go on, y'know). You could use that money to buy another CD from another artist that is unfortunate enough to be signed to one of their labels, but they don't think like that.

Most businesses try to earn our hard-money by giving us a service that pleases us. The RIAA is different - it is a business that exists only to please itself, and to keep itself alive. It has no real reason to exist any longer.

Hey I think I will ship my scratched cd back and ask to have them fixed or replaced, like they will do any thing about it, but try to you know what again.

They also want to take away your ability to hear a CD before you buy it. If you buy a CD and find it only has 3 good songs that don't justify the price, you should be able to demand your money back on the premise of shoddy workmanship or false advertising.

Also, I believe that under fair use all you need is a beat up vinyl copy, 8-track or pre-recorded cassette to prove your right to download a new copy. But if they destroy free p2p they will be depriving you of the ability to do that. So everyone could then just go buying up old vinyl and tapes and demand new CD's of the stuff. That would quickly break them if the courts ruled they were obligated to do so.

Hey, if the RIAA can exploit stupid loopholes in the law, why can't we?

Here's my two cents:

If you are in possession of a defective CD, you should take it back to wherever you bought it from, and get/demand a new copy.

If you are paying for the artform of the music on the CD and not the CD itself, then if your CD gets scratched you should be given another one. That is more or less what the RIAA is saying, right?

First off Bill (and seraphielx) props and major thanks for all the work on the .htaccess and other things you folks have done at techfocus!

As to fair use, guarantees, etc., here are my thoughts. The history of the "fair use" doctrine was that, if you just excerpted small amounts of a copyrighted work, for example, if you were doing a critique or review of that work...it would really not be a copyright infringement, because critics, book publishers, etc. may have a reasonable purpose to use such excerpts and it would be unreasonably burdensome to make writers contact everyone to get prior permission of use, especially if their review was going to be negative and the copyright holder could agree to use only if a review was favorable. Then, fair use became extended in the Home Audio Recording Act, to include copying music from the radio or video off the tv. This was an odd take on fair use for me, but , good in that it established a common right to record works which are broadcast, for private, non-commercial use. Now, product guarantees or warranty agreements. Normally, consumers can expect when they purchase a product, that there is a warranty of fitness of merchantability or "fitness for use", that a product should be fit for its ordinary usage. For example, if you bought a baseball bat, it should be able to hit a ball and not splinter into a million pieces. If you buy an ice cream cone, it shouldn't be made with arsenic, nor should it explode when you consume it. But, in product liability , products vary in their ruggedness and that is something that is accepted in the marketplace. For example, a pair of iron bookends are more rugged and arguably more durable than a fine decanter made of crystal.
The law doesn't recognize that you have an inherent right to make copies of thinks because their construction makes them vulnerable to a kind of damage that would render them useless.
And, patent law also comes into play.
Let's say you could magically create perfect copies of gucci purses and did so, because your wife said that her gucci purses kept getting scratched or wore out before she thought they should. If you did this, you would be legally/technically guilty of copyright infringement and probably trademark infringement.

It gets kind of murky when you get into digital media copying. Software EULAs, USUALLY allow one backup copy per CD. And this is enabled by the software vendor, giving you express copy permission for backup purposes in the EULA, which constitutes "prior permission by the copyright holder", however; when you buy a music CD, look closely at the packaging and liner notes. Is there a statement giving you express prior permission to copy the CD for a spare backup? Probably not, and if you do not have such express permission, and make a backup copy, a case could be made for copyright infringement.

At digitalconsumer.org, they make this statement in their FAQ section...

"2.1 You're joking, right? Of course I can make a copy of a CD or record a TV show!
Unfortunately, those activities are no longer legal. Or to be more specific, such activities are illegal unless the content provider gives you permission. For example, the record company might say that making a copy of CD is illegal, but they may offer to provide you with low-quality digital tracks that can only be played on a single computer. (That is the approach taken by some existing copy-protected CDs.) The important point is that rights that used to be unconditional are now only granted to us at the content provider's discretion. "

Thus, legally, there is no absolute right under fair use, to make a backup copy of a music CD which is in digital format, without express, prior, written permission of the copyright holder, from what I know of the law.
If there is a provision of the DMCA which allows for this and someone knows of this, please post it if you would, and thanks in advance.
~code

axxis is right, IF it is defective on first opening. The vendor of the CD does not warrant that nothing will happen to it during the life of the CD that destroys its use and/or functionality. It's basically the same as when I used to buy a single made of vinyl...you scratch it, you're screwed..I couldn't take it back and demand another one.

No, BrandonH. The RIAA is saying that you are paying for the CD itself, and if it gets scratched and it damages the content, well, too bad, go out and pick up another.

Like I said, it is not about pleasing the customer. It is not even about the content. It is about the short-term gratification of the RIAA - at the customer's expense.

And as that gratification is getting more and more difficult for them to obtain, well, they will use whatever tricks they have up their sleeve (no matter how low or unethical they might be), to make sure we keep paying.

It's not working on me - I won't buy any of their CDs until the RIAA has lost its power (or preferably, drawn its final breath).

I would be more than happy to package up each and everyone of my scratched CD's and mail them to the RIAA requesting replacement or refund. So long as we all do it.

This could be an action against RIAA: returning scratched CD's and requesting a new copy. Imagine thousands of customers doing this... if s&h expenses are on RIAA's members (as they should, since they have supposedly caused the problem), this could be definitely more than a simple nuisance to them...

lol...billow, imagine the same action, but complaining not of scratches...but an "unacceptably inferior level of content"..

Glad to see the response to the idea. Basically, I see the following results if it took off:

1. Legal minefield. If you use CD protection, you'll have to provide a backup solution - ie. warranty.
2. Shipping & Receiving department staffing would have to increase.
3. Warranty and RMA fullfillment center would have to be created.
4. If the RIAA forced this on the actual RIAA members to fulfill, they'd still have to forward all of these CD's. That means shipping costs.
5. If they didn't forward these CD's, they'd still have to dump or return them.

Get the point? If they're going to inflict administrative costs on everyone else, there's no reason they should be exempt from common business practices.

Have a good day, folks!

Here's something interesting which shows how the big 5 operate. In the late eighties I worked for a mom and pop CD store. Our return policy was if the CD was defective you could return it for a replacement copy. The big 5 would not replace those to us free of charge and we had to eat the cost of them wholesale. Thats how customer service orientied they are. We sold a Journey CD to a lady one time that somehow had the music of a gangsta rapper (AMG, after some research) that wasn't even on Journey's label and they wouldn't even replace that. I kept it for novelty and later sold it on eBay for a huge profit.

broyle:
I'd imagine they would just pass on those costs to their customers. But that would be a good thing I suppose. Cd prices go higher, less people buy, repead ad nauseum.


x

ILUVELPEES-just the thought of someone buying a Journey CD and getting a rapper is hilarious...
LOL..the acapella song stylings of
Phat Steve Perry...I can see it now...
The liner notes...WORD! If you loved Oh Cheri, you'll love "Busta Cap in Em...trying my best to stay on topic though...Once, I bought a John Lennon single, and on the other side, was Yoko Ono, screaming her keester off..it was literally the most horrible racket I ever heard, and I refused to keep it, so I took it back to the record store and told them I picked the wrong CD up. Then, they asked me which one I meant to get, and I told them something else, like KISS or Creedence Clearwater Revival or something, (maybe Steppenwolf). They tried to argue with me like the name was not even near to the one I wanted or something like that...bottom line was I got my money back.
No one should have to buy a pig in a poke..i.e., something not listened to first...

i didn't mean CD...it was a vinyl single 45

Windows is getting into DRM with the latest download...

Recommended Update for Windows Rights Management client 1.0
Download size: 3.6 MB, 1 minute
The Windows Rights Management (RM) client is required for your computer to run applications that provide functionality based on RM technologies. Installing this client allows RM-aware applications to work with Windows Rights Management Services (RMS) to provide licenses for publishing and consuming RM-protected information. After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer. Read more...

Sorry that didn't come out correctly.
I didn't mean that is how the RIAA chooses to interpret things. I meant that by using their logic, that is how things should be interpretted. They want to have it both ways.

After reading some of these posts, I went to midbartech.com and macrovision.com to read up on their DRM techniques. I am amazed at the effort they're putting into protecting a dying format, and how complicated the process has become. Too bad the money being used on development can't be channelled into something more constructive. I wonder how many band-aids they will have to apply before they realize the critter's dead...

x

I agree, to a point.

If someone's CD got scratched because they threw it across the room or something, that's no different than someone tossing their sony flatscreen out the window and then expecting a new one the next day.

But yeah....same thing goes for defective DVDs. There should be some kind of warranty.

There is a warranty, if its defective it will be replaced by copy of same IF its damaged in some way at the factory. But if you drop it out the window and it shatters into a million pieces, you have two choices-lie or buy a new one (and convincing a store clerk that it came in a million pieces is gonna be tough!!!

Hey Code: Anything with Yoko's "singing" on it is defective, and you'll get arguements from few on that one!!!!!!

My two cents is this: For any other type of media purchased on cd, the best example is software, you can always get a replacement copy. Like when you buy a new computer and you have lost your original software, they verify you bought it and then send you a new copy, OR allow you to download it for free. My proposal is this: when you buy a CD there should be some website available to register it and the music it contains, allowing you to always replace your copy, in the event of damage. For this to work it must be encrypted files and specific software to re-burn cd's. You still have the original problem though, just as with software, somebody somewhere, will crack it, steal it, and illegally offer it for download.
My "2"

I guess what I'd really like to know is:

What the heck did I purchase when I bought all the albums/tapes/cassettes/CD¡¦s that I've purchased at least once, mostly twice (on average) over the years, worn out, purchased again - until I could finally afford the technology to be able to keep them safe forever? Until recently I thought I bought the right to have and do with it whatever I wanted! Granted it didn¡¦t give me the right to make copies and open a store, nor did it give me the right (nor would I have given a thought to), mass distribution of someone¡¦s work. An occasional copy for a buddy? It¡¦s been going on since there was a way to copy. Would he/she have purchased? What¡¦s the difference? Where were the complaints of the RIAA and the record labels then? Is it more wrong now, or was it less wrong then?

Perhaps it is simply more apropos to ¡§sue¡¦ em¡¨ in this post Clinton cesspool the whole country seems to be wallowing in where it¡¦s more important to identify who we can take something from than it is to identify what we really have to offer. It would seem to be true, Congress is even helping out by changing the laws to help in that effort. Is this war declared by the RIAA really a war of convenience, or possibly of diminishing dollars due to lack of attention, or even better attempted salvation of the bottom line by any means? HEY P2P, oops got a slap on that one, I mean P2P users, you look like a good scape goat (or would be cash cow). By the way, the RIAA has already stated that none of the proceeds from their legal onslaught will be given to those abused artists who are sitting in their modest automobiles outside their small modest homes so much like those that the millions of criminals live in.

In ¡§the day¡¨, there was a limited or non-existent ability for customers to copy music. We all were at the mercy of the music industry. If our copy ceased to function then we were forced to purchase another. This was their day, I¡¦m sure they loved it and would like to see it continue forever. Unfortunately the consumer, just like the RIAA and labels do not like to get ripped off. I bought the music once, why should I have to purchase it again? In the past I had no alternative, now I do! Does that make me a criminal?


When I was 22 and in the Navy, I had enough albums in my collection to cover the floor of a 10X12 room standing on edge (I know this because it did exactly that). This was before I knew what the RIAA was or that it even existed (did it?). It was also Pre-Internet, Pre-[the best way to get something is to take it away from someone else (what!!! work for it and earn it?!?!?! Heaven forbid!!!)]. Two days prior to my ¡§packing out¡¨ and coming home I moved all of my stuff back into my barrack room to be shipped. As you might guess, All of these albums along with my stereo and anything else of value was stolen. Was the ownership right and fair use right of that music stolen along with it? Is there no way to recover those tunes? Most of them are impossible to find except for online. My point is why should I have to pay for it again IF I can find it? Would the RIAA be equally upset if that I was required to purchased another copy of an old album offered for sale?

Today, if I lose an album, if an album is stolen, or I want to recover lost music of the past I have an alternative to only purchasing another copy ¡V I can download it. Granted the quality may/may not be as good but come on guys, I purchased the rights to listen so what¡¦s up?!?! Guess what, the technology for this does exist today, it¡¦s cheap, and it¡¦s not going away. The recording industry has know this for some time and has ignored it¡K Who¡¦s to blame???? Everything is regulated by perspective, we must ALL remember this. One persons perspective as a downloader may not be the same as the RIAA¡¦s perspective as a copyright owner. Does this make the downloader a criminal?

While I was there looking for my old music I thought ¡§ Hey, what a great way to preview new music!¡¨.Now I don¡¦t have to purchase an album unless I feel compelled to spend $20.00 on one song. In the past I had to buy the one song for the price and figure that they would have at least one more good song on the album. Now I can preview and make an educated purchasing decision.

I would have never thought that by having my music in digital format on my computer and loading a file sharing software program I would become a criminal. I didn¡¦t know by purchasing music I was giving up my right to privacy nor do I remember any correspondence stating such. I didn¡¦t tell anybody to by default go ahead and make all my music available to the world, that was the file sharing software author¡¦s decision. All I wanted was to recover music that was stolen from me that I had previously purchased. Is everyone except those unable to financially voice an opinion automatically a mute criminal? Hey mister lawmaker, what about me, the silent minimally financed majority that you are supposed to be representing? If there is blame to be had, then Kazaa, Grokster, and all the rest are equal partners¡K ¡§Gee we had no idea they would transfer those illegal files over our network that was designed to maximize the ability to do so. Sure guys, come on ¡V give me a break¡K¡¨

It all needs to be put into perspective that music is not a commodity, music is a drug. It touches each of us on a singular level where we either assimilate it, or we totally reject it. The artists know this, it¡¦s what got them into and keeps them in the industry. The RIAA and the labels also know it, it¡¦s what has made them rich. What better market to be in than that of a legal drug? The RIAA and labels also need to understand that no market will sustain itself left unchecked, someone has to be monitoring and running it. They are now oh so painfully finding this truth. They need to be adjusting for changes in the customer base and customer needs and expectations. Notice, unlike the RIAA, that the customer is the driving force in any true business. If you cannot keep up with them, they will stampede you.

Wake up guys, it is out there ¡V but you¡¦ll have to work for it. You can¡¦t steal it and you can¡¦t lie your way out of it¡K

Oldies1





BTW, this article is copyrighted ļ

oldies1 - thanks for your service 2 our country man !
~code

What I REALLY hate, is when my MP3s get all scratched up...you know how hard it is to polish those ones and zeros !

"...there's no assurance under Section 112 or Section 1201 that webcasters, or any other user of copyrighted works, ought to have access to works in the most convenient means."

Testimony of Steve Englund (RIAA)
April 11, 2003, Washington D.C. DMCA Rule-making Hearings, held by the U.S. Copyright Office.

I used to have 460+ mp3's on my hard drive. I got up one morning, turned on the computer to listen to some music, started re-arranging/organizing my files, and SWOOSH! It only took about .50 seconds for all 460 mp3's to be deleted. Man, I should have had more coffe that morning before I touched my computer. ; - (

~goingnova

I propose that we send in our old 8 tracks and demand a identical (8 track tape) replacement, being that we don't own the music on the tape just the media. I also propose, just to demonstrate our sincereness, that we offer about $1.50 per tape to pay for a blank tape and the labor to duplicate it.
--... ...-- 's

Just an aside...

Before you throw out your scratched cds try using the skipdoctor (fixes scratched cds or dvds) or some other equivalent disk repair tool. It actually works, pays for itself the first couple of times you use it. Saved many of mine from the scrap heap.

And if all else fails and it still skips just take a black magic marker and write www.boycott-riaa.com on the shiny side and display it in some prominent place in your local shopping mall...

I've had a similar problem to oldies1. Back in the 80's, when I was a teen, I had around 200 cassettes stolen from my vehicle. A few years ago, our car was broken into and along with the CD player, around 25 or so CD's were taken. Even our dreadfully expensive comprehensive insurance doesn't cover items that aren't physically attached to the vehicle, so we were SOL. My primary reason for using kazaa/napster/etc. was for recovery of those songs I already paid for. If this is considered stealing, we've got some serious problems in our country concerning consumers' rights. To hell with the RIAA and all the other money-grubbing bastards, and their pet politicians.

I bought a Data Dr (a.k.a. DVD Doctor, Skip Doctor....) in the hopes of making my heavily used Half-Life CD functional once more, after I was informed by Valve (or Sierra, can't recall which) I'd have to pay for the replacement disc. I'd even bought 2 copies of the game, one as a gift to a buddy of mine. They didn't care. I always take great care with my optical discs, but when you're using one as much as I did that one, scratches are just plain unavoidable. The resurfacing unit so far has been successful on all discs I've tried it with. Worth the $30, as RIAAposterchild pointed out.

This type of infraction against consumers (DMCA being the first major step), along with the recent continuing attempts by several elected Democrats to do away with violent games, is reminiscent of Clinton's and HCI's attempts to remove important choices from citizens. Back then it was just as serious, if not moreso, as firearms are used by law-abiding people to protect life more frequently than to take innocent lives. It's this type of "thinking" that gets Republicans elected to Congress & the House. I'm not a big fan of either party, if my children grew up to become politicians I'd feel as though I had failed as a parent, but it surely seems to me that liberty is generally less likely to be trampled upon by Republicans.

unless you live in the middle east. then your liverties are fair game to be trampled upon. are you serious??? republicans less likely to trampel upon our civil liberties? Hah.

As far as this topic, I think some missed the point. the original; intent was that new, copy-protected discs should be warrantied because you can NEVER make a copy from them and the life of a CD IS in fact limited no matter how well one treats it. It was never referring to CDs that one "smashes" or uses as a coaster. Nor was it referring 99.9% of CDs that are in circulation. Go ahead and make a backup of all your scratched CDs (you'll find that skipless backups and mp3s can readily be made with most any scratched CD, unless you've taken sandpaper to it or something). What Bill here was saying is that these new forms of copyright management in CDs are taking away the consumer's right to longevity for his hard earned CD that is highly succeptable to limited use and that, if your CD is rendered useless within a reasonable amount of time, that there should be a warranty because there was no way to preserve it. And he's absolutely right. The whole "let's all send our CD's back to the RIAA" is absurd. The RIAA is a legal lobbying group. They do not manufacture or profit from CD sales. They look out for the labels' interests (albeit at humungous salaries). I am all for RIAA boycott, but go back and read this most well written post and get what it's saying.

tell cary sue that we are going to revitalize the economy by increasing fedex and ups workload from sending in our defective and corrupted discs.....slightly on topic, i bought a cd a few years ago and hated it(each and every song) i returned to the sound wherehouse and told the manager that the disc sucked and he laughed....and HE offered to refund my money! he said "buying music is a crapshoot....you dont know what you are getting till you get it in your car or house"(this was before they let you preview the cd in the store) sad to say he wasnt there long (not because he refunded my money) guess they dont like sensible evenhanded people working for them

Just another way the RIAA and Big Business have of making money while in the process of taking away another right. Gotta love our goverment and representation when it is perfectly fine to screw the consumer but the minute the consumer speaks up and does something about it thet work thier fannies off to squash it. Gotta love it?

I read somewhere that the life span of a CDR is about 1 millions uses. Not sure if that's for 1 million times you access it or 1 million times you copy to it. Either way, does anyone have any valid data on the actual "projected lifespan" of a cd (music or data)?? I'm sure there is a number, and it's based on reasonable use, not counting the times you'r driving down the road, go to swap cds and drop one on the floormat.
ttmmm

I read somewhere that the life span of a CDR is about 1 millions uses. Not sure if that's for 1 million times you access it or 1 million times you copy to it. Either way, does anyone have any valid data on the actual "projected lifespan" of a cd (music or data)?? I'm sure there is a number, and it's based on reasonable use, not counting the times you'r driving down the road, go to swap cds and drop one on the floormat.
ttmmm

Hell yeah! Lets not only boycott them, lets send all the CD's and tapes and stuff BACK to the RIAA labels with letters of protest that demand our MONEY back included in each one!
Who cares if the disc or tape is defunct or not (most of mine are by now)
we should just state that the music is unappealing because it if from the RIAA!

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

All CDs "protected" with DRM are defective.

(Or... more accurate: "anything claiming to be a CD with DRM on it is NOT a CD.")

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

Sheesh! About 70% of my downloads are music I already paid for at least once. And, sorry RIAA, I'm got going to pay for it twice. On second though, I'm not sorry one bit. And neither should anyone else be. This whole situation would be completely laughbable, if it wasn't so sad.

it is laughable celticgwen....look at cary sues lips, looks like he was stung by a cobra

I love this thread-funny!
But, on topic now, Gwen is right, we focus a lot on how filesharing encourages future purchases. I was looking thru my library, and gwen is right, the VAST majority of music there, is music I already purchased at some point. Ever here a song on the retro hour, that you had in high school, then lost and forgot about?
Sorry to admit, but i really like 'a flock of seagulls'-between cassets, cds, and compilitions of 80's crap, i have bought thier work numerous times!
perhaps we should focus on this aspect also.
another thought: albiet it rare, there are certian works no longer 'in print'-that is they are unobtainable thru the channels the RIAA has 'provided'-few to be sure, but a few is enough. sometimes the only way i can find a rare track is thru p2p networks.
One a final note, i think the idea outlined is a stroke of genius. We should coordinate a mass mailing of our old CDs. realistically there will be no replacements, or other restitution, but the PR/political value to our cause would be immense, if enough of us participated.
I vote we explore this idea further.
anyone wanna help me come up with a specific plan?
email me at operaghost@charter.net
interested to hear others thoughts on this...

~time flies~

oh-we should sent our packages 'return receipt requested'

~time flies~

Zeitgheist: I'm busy with the htaccess blocking stuff right now, but I'd love to see the idea go forward Just don't forget to duct-tape the boxes tightly... wouldn't want them to be easily torn, or anything!

sorry about the double post there, guess my server is faster than I thought.
zeitgheist: this is ndeed a part of the problem, and it's been addressed. It was even (briefly) touched on during the TechTV show Bill was on. The RIAA has even gone so far as to say (sorry, I don't remember where) that if you can prove you own it, they won't sue you for it, or something to that effect. I agree that a LOT of the stuff I want can't be found (ie: out of print, no rights etc..) thru normal outlets, so I download. I'd PAY to have em, if I didn't have to pay thru the nose, but why pay 20bux for a CD that has maybe two songs from Howard Jones, Peter Gabriel or (I'll admit it too) A Flock of Seagulls?
Points made, points in the mix.
ttmmm