I may have little knowledge of this matter, but I'm tired of hearing this. iPods are everywhere. High school and college students use them frequently before and after classes are over to listen to music that motivates them for the day or at least to lift their spirits. They're on school busses when youngsters don't like listening to the radio stations the bus driver has on. It seems that radio stations are on the way out along with CD's and other forms of media. With iPods on the market, anyone can download their favorite songs, watch an episode of a television series, and view pictures on the digital media player. A person could even download a movie rental for a day for a payment of three or four dollars, depending on how recent the DVD was released.
iPods are little personal media players used for entertainment purposes. The iPod was developed by Apple, Inc. in 2001 and became the best selling digital audio player in the nation. But they restrict the entire experience of a real album, which takes a toll on album sales and recording industries' revenues. They are a waste of time and money, there have been legal situations with them in the past, and they ruin most of the entire music experience. Predominantly, iPods and downloading sites are not as great as advertised. They may seem more convenient, but that doesn’t make them worth anything.
First of all, there's the nagging issue of illegal downloads. iPods can play music, display various photos, and play video clips, from television shows to movies. However when it comes to the Microsoft programs, Apple's software doesn't support Microsoft WMA audio format but does have a converter for those files without using Digital Rights Management, or DRM, commonly used by Apple, BBC, Sony, and Microsoft. DRM has been a controversial issue for a few years. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that DRM was a monopoly and the Free Software Foundation found that people should use restrictions management more, according to Wikipedia. Conversely, some argued that DRM is necessary for copyright holders in order to prevent piracy and ensure they will still be credited for their work. Later in 2005, Apple was faced with two lawsuits about copyright infringement. The cases stated that Apple was using copyrights without the permission of the patent for using music on the iTunes website and the use of iPods. It was similar to cases of RealNetworks, Sony, and Napster.
Furthermore, there have been issues at hand with P2P file sharing, commonly known as illegal downloading. According to northwestern.edu, there have been free file sharing software that were available on unauthorized networks without copyright holders’ permission online. In a blog post on legal issues, someone made a Google search for ‘illegal music downloading’, which showed 35,000 hits, and ‘illegal music uploading’ where only four sites were available. That said, anyone could find an illegal downloading or uploading site easily and won’t be able to tell if the site is secure. There was even a Supreme Court ruling in 2004 about how P2P file sharing needed to be revised so that there wouldn’t be any legal issues with copyright holders in order to settle disputes. Those issues are still around today and no one wants to be wrongfully accused.
Then again, I've heard that illegal downloading is not so much of a big deal anymore. File sharing sites such as Napster have fixed all of their problems with downloading.
There are also issues with recording companies. The recording industry is being paid less money due to the fact that people are now buying downloads rather than purchasing CD’s. Because more people find music online than in a store, record stores are losing sales as well to online media proprietors. “The recording industry sees declining revenues and increase bootlegging and demands law enforcement respond,” the post on blogspot.com read, describing problems with downloading. Plus, advertisements are placed all over the downloading internet sites, which ruin the music experience because of the clutter and distraction. CD's don't have many advertisements on the packaging except for maybe a few notes about what brands of equipment the artists use (such as Fender guitars, etc.), charities they support, or their fan clubs and websites.
In conclusion, CD’s are more preferable than iPods and downloads. CD's and portable CD players are more convenient and inexpensive. An iPod classic costs $249, plus extra money for song after song purchased. For buying songs, music.yahoo.com charges a dollar per song and Amazon.com charges as low as $0.89 per song. But if someone downloads an entire album from either website, it could cost about thirteen or fourteen dollars per album, depending on the site. As for downloading sites like Rhapsody, Limewire, and Napster, they give a free trial at first before charging thirteen dollars a month only several weeks later. At Wal Mart, it costs about ten or twelve dollars for a portable skip-prone CD player with headphones. Then, CD’s can cost as little as five dollars at a retail record store like Record and Tape Traders, which saves a lot more money.
Additionally, recording companies are using less plastic for the packaging on CD’s to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will protect the environment. Albums such as “The Open Door” by Evanescence, Sugarcult’s “Lights Out”, and Ingrid Michaelson’s “Girls and Boys” use different types of cardboard and paper rather than plastic. Recording artists are even saving paper by making their lyrics available online than in CD booklets.
Simply, CD’s are easier and more reasonable to manage than iPods and downloads. So, why bother using downloads anyway?
Maybe my father has a point. He says that CD’s can be lost or stolen. They can be easily misplaced and they skip within a portable CD player no matter what. “You always have to clean them,” he says. I might reconsider that later. I’ve lost two of my favorite Norah Jones albums, ‘Not Too Late’ and ‘Don’t Know Why’. I had to go to the Record and Tape Traders again so I could purchase at least one of them. However, there was no used copy of ‘Not Too Late’ available at the store. Not only that, the downloading companies made some major modifications in the last few years.
What is the smarter choice when it comes to buying music? What a debate.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
