(no subject)

The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 22 May 2009
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5455

sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org22 May 2009, 18:49
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090522/55be06d0/attachment.htm>
Jordon Flato22 May 2009, 18:53

↳ in reply to sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org

Aquarius has a pretty big selection I think. Tell them Jordon sent you.
26 quoted lines
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM, <sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org> wrote: does anyone know where to get used mp3s? ~witz On Wed May 20 17:44 , Adam Thornton sent: On May 20, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Stuart Hamm wrote: No one's gonna back me? Don't we all rush out and buy a first edition of GW's new books instead of downloading an illegal copy??? Yeah. My own position is that downloading media illegally is some-kind-of-bad (me, I still prefer to buy physical CDs and then rip them to iTunes, so that I have unprotected files which I can then copy to whatever music player I may have in the future that might not be an iPod), but it's not exactly theft. Copyright infringement is not, in my mind, the same crime as, say, stealing your TV. I do not, however, think there's a one-to-one correspondence between lost sales and illegal downloads. That is, plenty of people download things that they're idly curious about, but nowhere near enough interested in to buy. Now, one can, quite correctly, make the point that they SHOULDN'T OUGHTA BE USING IT then. Fair enough. But mainly I was just bringing it up as a counterpoint to Brunians' absolutist Property Rights statement, by pointing out that there are some things which some people consider legitimate property rights, and others do not. Adam _______________________________________________

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.