I apologize if this point has been made before, but I wanted to know your opinions on a suggestion I made on another message board. It seems that record companies (and the artists) feel that MP3-sharing websites and programs (Napster, Kazaa, etc) are a threat to CD sales. So, record companies feel that they need to shut down these sites and sue them in order to reduce this threat. Obviously, the availability of MP3s on the internet makes it possible for users to download songs and burn them onto a CD - without having to buy the CD. But, there are many who download MP3s and still buy CDs, and these people feel that MP3 file-sharing actually contributes to increased CD sales. So, the suggestion I had made was: to limit the audio quality of the songs available. At 192kbps, an MP3 track sounds pretty close to CD-quality (to the average listener). However, at 96kbps, the song will sound noticeably inferior, yet listenable. So, if Kazaa, Napster, AudioGalaxy, etc all limited the bitrate of the songs to 96kbps, the problem would be pretty much solved. The reason is that, people who care about audio quality would go out and buy the CD, because burning a 96kbps MP3 would be no different than taping a song off the radio. By limiting the bitrate, MP3 file sharing would not pose a threat to CD sales, because buying a CD would mean that consumers would be paying for a higher-quality product. As it is now, a lot of people don't see the point of spending $15 on a CD, when they can download MP3s and burn them on a CD for less than $1 (and both CDs sound equally good). So, what do you all think? Is this a feasible solution? Technically speaking, I think that it would be very simple to implement a "bitrate limit" on a software like Kazaa or Napster. I'm sure that many people would complain if such a limit were put into effect, but at least it would be a good compromise for everyone.