Zombywoof

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:28:36 GMT, "John C." <jonc@shore.net> wrote:

>
>"Zombywoof" <Zomby-Woof_dogs_@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:k3hlu1hknijlsjtbmsm5bqiph3q9dfadve@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:11:14 GMT, Joe <nobody@home.now> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You still can't beat the fidelity of a CD on a real good system IMO.
>> >Since I make my own CDs from dl'd music (gotta love
>> >alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.complete_cd), my total cost is the CD itself and
>> >the time it takes to make the CD from the mp3s. It's a no-brainer. BTW,
>> >most of the mp3s on that newsgroup are ripped at 192 or higher, so the
>> >fidelity is still right there.
>> >
>> Understood, but while I think the prices for store bought CD's to be
>> to high, I still refuse to obtain the material without paying the
>> appropriate royalties to the artists. Now if it is the artist
>> themselves putting their work into the public domain, I have no
>> problem with obtaining that which the artist him/herself released for
>> all to enjoy.
>
>I'm with you on that, up to a point. My rule is: If I own the material on *any*
>form of media (LP, cassette or CD), I'll snag the mp3 without a trace of guilt.
>I'm certainly not going to pay (again) for a digitally remastered disc of
>previously purchased material. If it's new material, and I like it, I buy the
>disc. Ripping HQ mp3s from CD is tedious, so even if I have it on CD, I'll snag
>the post.
>
I've followed that rule since the days of vinyl. Once the artist has
gotten my money for the song, I feel I have the right to have multiple
copies. Now I wouldn't want to have to use that as a defense in
court, but I am not doing it from a legal perspective either.
--

December 9, 2005 (CNN) While interviewing an anonymous
US Special Forces soldier, a Reuters News agent asked
the soldier what he felt when sniping members of Al Quaeda
in Afghanistan.

The soldier shrugged and replied, "Recoil." (Possible Urban Legend)