CD changer options?
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 486
Likes: 1
From: Pearland, TX
CD changer options?
Well, when I found out the price of the factory unit I quickly decided to look elsewhere. I'm thinking of going to CarToys to get a CD changer. What has anyone put into their RA? For Sportback drivers, where have you installed a changer?
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
I think most people go for mp3-cd decks instead of cd changers, because you can fit a comparable (more, even?) amount of music without dealing with multiple disks or taking up another section of the dash. I'll be getting one myself fairly soon.
What I'd really love is a mp3-dvd headunit, but AFAIK they don't exist
What I'd really love is a mp3-dvd headunit, but AFAIK they don't exist
Trending Topics
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton, AB
Originally posted by RWElphinstone
LDB - Most people use a CD-RW on their home computer to record MP3 CD's. If you download music online - DISCLAIMER: Bad! Very Bad!
- then you can record them to a CD for use in your car.
LDB - Most people use a CD-RW on their home computer to record MP3 CD's. If you download music online - DISCLAIMER: Bad! Very Bad!
- then you can record them to a CD for use in your car.
but either way, if you already purchased the song(like say buying a cd) then it's a-ok to make an mp3 of it...for personal use...same thing as recording onto a cassette tape...
Originally posted by Khobin~
NOT here anymore...a court just ruled that people can't be sued for dl'n music
but either way, if you already purchased the song(like say buying a cd) then it's a-ok to make an mp3 of it...for personal use...same thing as recording onto a cassette tape...
NOT here anymore...a court just ruled that people can't be sued for dl'n music
but either way, if you already purchased the song(like say buying a cd) then it's a-ok to make an mp3 of it...for personal use...same thing as recording onto a cassette tape...
-joe
Joe you're wrong, the court ruled that ISP's do not have to release the identities of people with music being shared on their computer to the record companies. Therefor the record companies are unable to legally go after someone in canada sharing music on the internet.
Anyways, if you're planning on putting a sub in your car, you're gonna have to change that head unit.
Anyways, if you're planning on putting a sub in your car, you're gonna have to change that head unit.
read the article first before you tell people they are wrong.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...ational/Canada
what it amounts to is that the ISP don't have to identify the uploaders, that's ALL the ruling says.. and that's all the music industry is after this round. In the second round, they will start to go after the downloaders, who ARE willingly and knowingly downloading content, versus the "uploaders" who merely made it available.
next time you jump to conclusion about who is right and who is wrong, at least have all the facts.
-joe
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...ational/Canada
The Canadian Recording Industry Association was seeking a court order to identify 29 so-called uploaders, Internet users it claimed had illegally posted hundreds of songs illegally on the Web. Judge von Finckenstein refused to grant the order, arguing that placing a song in an on-line music-sharing directory such as Kazaa "does not amount to distribution." Without the uploaders' names, CRIA cannot file lawsuits seeking damages
...
Judge von Finckenstein concluded the CRIA presented "no evidence" that the alleged uploaders knowingly "distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings" via peer-to-peer or "P2P" file-sharing sites.
"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," he wrote.
...
Judge von Finckenstein concluded the CRIA presented "no evidence" that the alleged uploaders knowingly "distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings" via peer-to-peer or "P2P" file-sharing sites.
"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," he wrote.
what it amounts to is that the ISP don't have to identify the uploaders, that's ALL the ruling says.. and that's all the music industry is after this round. In the second round, they will start to go after the downloaders, who ARE willingly and knowingly downloading content, versus the "uploaders" who merely made it available.
next time you jump to conclusion about who is right and who is wrong, at least have all the facts.
-joe
Well Joe, it seems to me that article you so kindly copied and pasted proved me right and you wrong again, but if you're gonna get all worked up over it that's fine by me.