General discussion


Buying/Selling an iPod could get you busted

By jdclyde ·
Been reading up on article dealing with ipods and mp3's.

(just a few of the articles I found. I ignored blogs)

If you buy an ipod preloaded you can be charged with recieving stolen goods.

If you sell an ipod, you are suppose to either clear off all the music from the ipod, or make sure you don't have a copy saved on your computer.

If you ripped your own mp3's off of cd's, you are actually suppose to send the cd's with the ipod as you have given away your right to that music.

Where will the music industry realize threatening their clients is not good for business?

I heard this on the radio and it sounded so crazy, I just had to look it up. To my surprise it is all over the net.

What will be next?

And can you believe people are stupid enough to pay 99 cents for ONE song as a down load? duh!

I have my ipod shuffle, but only because it was a door prize at a voip seminar! I NEVER use it and find the samsung mp3 players I bought my boys for Christmas to be much better, and twice the storage for only $30 more AND have a display.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Madness or Greed?

by wwed In reply to Buying/Selling an iPod co ...

Either way I suppose this will carry over to all mp3
players and then any other storage media, loaded hard drives and more.
when will this corporate greed end?

Collapse -

this is why

by jdclyde In reply to Madness or Greed?

many of the players all require WinXP. XP allows them to lock down the media.

Also the reason I won't EVER buy an iRiver product again and question the intellegence of anyone that would.

Collapse -

Corporate greed is a good thing

by maxwell edison In reply to Madness or Greed?

Without "corporate greed" there would be no corporate profits. Without corporate profits, there would be no corporations. Without corporations, there would be no corporate employees. Without corporate employees, there would be no product, no payroll, no.......

Collapse -

so back to

by rob mekel In reply to Corporate greed is a good ...

the bush, hunting deer, living in caves. lol

Think not, but there has to be a limit on the greed of some of these company's. Can be done by not buying any of their products. (lol, as if that ever will be done )

But then again is that the case now? Think not. As you buy music, ipod download, cd, dvd, etc, it doesn't give you the right to keep a copy and sell the original you bought.


Collapse -

Liberal Musings Alert

by faradhi In reply to Corporate greed is a good ...

I disagree that corporate greed is a good thing. Greed, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness.

There is corporate greed. It manifests itself in all sorts of ways. We hear all the time about corporate layoffs. The ones that happen when a company is not profitable I have no problem with. However, when I hear a company has layoffs because the increase in profits are not what is expected, this becomes greed. These layoffs ultimately decrease the number employed workers and decrease the number of people buying non-necessities. Thereby, reducing the buying power of the population and hurting businesses.

Profitable corporations are a good thing (Which is what I think you intended). Greedy corporations are a bad thing that ultimately hurt the economy.

Collapse -

What many people refuse to admit

by jdclyde In reply to Liberal Musings Alert

is that profit is not a bad thing.

They want the employees to make a good living with benifits, but profit for the share holders that make it all possible is always looked on as evil. We hear about "record profits" all the time, but never have this put into perspective.

How many times have you heard people complain about how much B. Gates has, but never complain about how much M. Jordan has?

Mostly it is people being told they should be jealous of other people that have a lot while they have so little.

Where does the line need to be drawn? When people break the laws.

Collapse -

Greed - As defined by whom?

by maxwell edison In reply to Liberal Musings Alert

That's why I say it's a good thing. Different people will have a different benchmark to determine what may or may not be excessive. And I don't think we want some person (profit czar) or agency (department of corporate profit), government or private, to decide what that may be. Besides, we already have such a group to decide what may or may not be excessive; they're called the consumers.

If a widget (or CD), for example, was made available for sale at the price of $1,000 per unit, the consumer group would be telling the supplier of that product what's excessive or not by their decision to purchase it or not. If nobody buys it at $1,000, but people would flock to buy it at $10, then that sends such a message to the supplier. The law of supply and demand, combined with fair competition, will define what's excessive, especially with a totally unnecessary product like a widget (or CD).

Therefore, it's all a good thing. Especially considering it's better than any other possible alternative.

By the way, that certainly was a typical "Liberal Musing". Quick to point out the perceived problems in the normal, liberal, rhetorical manner, demonizing a group (corporations, in this case), but not one shred of a proposed solution or alternative.

(That last "by the way", by the way, could certainly be taken as a challenge to elaborate a bit, based on the additional comments I've made.)

And you are correct, I was using "greedy" and "profitable" as being synonymous, but for the reason I described.

Edited Addition:

Especially in the case of music, whether it be CDs, or downloaded music, or any other format, the sky's the limit, if you ask me. If those guys can make a gazillion dollars by selling the stuff, more power to em'. Nobody's forcing anyone to buy it; and a person dang sure doesn't need it. But regardless, it's not good enough justification to steal the product, just because "somebody" decides they're being "greedy".

Collapse -

I did not demonize corporations

by faradhi In reply to Greed - As defined by who ...

I did not in anyway say all companies or even most companies are bad. I did not say all profits are bad. I stated a very specific example of what I believe to be greed.

Further, I would agree that there is no government solution nor did I propose one. I would agree with you that consumers should enforce their beliefs with their purchasing habits. This is why I don't own Nike clothing or do business with citigroup.

Collapse -

If you offer no "solution"

by maxwell edison In reply to I did not demonize corpor ...

If you offer no "solution", then we can surmise that there's no "problem". And if there's no "problem", what was the point of your message?

You might say that you didn't "demonize" corporations, but you really did, at least to a very small degree. (But maybe that's just another one of those "greed" versus "excess profits" things.)

Moreover, since you preceded your message with the warning about a liberal rant, I mean a liberal muse, I took the liberty to post an opposing political view. I don't think it's deniable that liberals, in general, demonize big business, as well as scores of other "groups". That's how they advance their liberal agenda. And the tone of your message, regardless of the degree, was just another instance of that very thing.

P.S. As a disclaimer: Don't take anything I say personal and/or as a personal attack. It won't be. However, I take every opportunity to discredit the evils and destructiveness of liberalism and liberal thought, even if it's presented in a non-political context. Liberal thought, in my opinion, has infiltrated every aspect of our existence, and it's one of the most evil and destructive things ever inflicted upon our way of life in the United States. So if you choose to open the door, I'll do whatever I can to slam it shut and/or discredit whatever liberal nonsense is being spewed.

Collapse -


by Mr L In reply to If you offer no "solution ...

Hallmarks of the neocon response to anything that can be labeled liberal. Extreme (...has infected every aspect of our existence), blame filled (...and it's one of the most evil {btw, talk about demonizing..sheeh} and destructive) and making demonstrably false comments regarding the liberal position paper or quote they are attacking (In no way shape or form did he demonize big business...but it suits your purpose to create a bias against him by associating his comments with that position).

Why is it, I wonder, that you can't simply a logical, constructive, and less vitriolic a debate or discussion around the issue at hand? I suppose, given your stated bias, that there should be only a single party (as divergent thought is anathema to the dedicated neocon), or...heck...since we are down to one about no party, and a conservative monarch instead...ala...King George?

Related Discussions

Related Forums