(no subject)
The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 22 May 2009
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5455

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.

==============================================================================

sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org — 22 May 2009, 18:49

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20090522/55be06d0/attachment.htm>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jordon Flato — 22 May 2009, 18:53
  in reply to sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org

Aquarius has a pretty big selection I think.  Tell them Jordon sent you.

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------------