W
ontario said:No clue why anyone would pay for that shit when it's still free and legal in canada.
sybaritic said:Of course it's not legal, even though you probably won't get caught. Even if it were legal it isn't ethical; remember when you buy music you pay the artists (as well unfortuantely as the less deserving music companies). That' the other reason I like the iPod/iTunes set up. They managed to create a system whereby those of us that want to be legit most of the time can do so with ease and reasonable fairness. 99 cents a cut is ok by me, even though my kids manage to spend a lot of our money that way. At least I'm not teaching them that it is ok to steal.![]()
If you find one I have 20 or so quad 8 tracks for sale,lol,Cnd-Guy said:Anyone have an 8 track cassette player
Lil'Miss said:If you have about 13-14 songs on a cd that costs 14.99-17.99, what's the difference?
Svend said:Remember when the Beatles allowed Apple to keep their name if they stayed out of the music business? Is this being followed?
Svend said:I'm curious as to how much of the 99 cents goes to the record company and how much Apple keeps.
Anyone know?
Remember when the Beatles allowed Apple to keep their name if they stayed out of the music business? Is this being followed?
MarkII said:Liken it to the reaction the Globe and Mail would have if you somehow photocopied their paper and sold it at every street corner for less than they sell it..or gave it away free.
They'd shut you down in a heartbeat.
This is total nonsense.MarkII said:Well in actual fact CD's are less expensive to create than a cassette.
No tape means a one piece construction, easily massed produced in quicker time than a cassette.
There is no reason why the CD should be any more money than a cassette..in fact it should be cheaper. We can buy CD's for about 2 cents in bulk..imagine what the replicating companies pay for blanks when buying in the millions. It's about .03 cents a blank or less.
I keep forgetting about the Apple store in Yorkdale ......sybaritic said:I ordered two of these sight unseen (one for my wife too), because they seemed designed for my needs, to replace our iPod minis. Today I went to the Apple Store to see what I bought and they do indeed have what I judge a perfect form factor--just about the size of a business card but with a sharp color screen; any smaller and they might get awkward to use--and a very nice feel. Plus they are really fast in viewing color pictures.
I've had the original iPod and four minis (one mini for each person in my family) with no problems. It is true that the battery life is not as long as some competitors and they are not cheap. For me, the best things they have going are ease of use and the iTunes software which is excellent--my eleven yo picked it up instantly when we got the kids theirs last Xmas. The competitor we had was very clunky by comparison. The kids absolutely love their minis and use them a lot. Since i use mine when I working out, the smaller and less obtrusive, the better. Plus I want to be able to carry pictures with me. Thus the nano is a great upgrade to the mini (if it proves durable).
excorrigere said:...bought a Sony HD-1. It's pretty much almost as small as your Nano player...... I did spend however 250 bucks on headphones LMAO...Bang and Olufsen...coz I figure, most of these players, sound output is about the same...it's all in the sound reproduction hardware, i.e., headphones! Get a great pair of head phones and it doesn't matter.