"Scott" wrote in message
...


The only downside iis there is some degradation in sound quality with that
procedure. But it's better than nothing.

--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

Most downloaded music files are encoded at 128 bit-rate, far below
CD-quality and now where near the depth that an analog vinyl recording would
offer. These are a convenience item, at best, and the slight degradation is
apt to be unnoticed by the average listener. That said, your point has
merit, and is yet another reason I avoid downloaded music as a rule.

I have a huge music collection - their storage is the principal use of my
computer. I completely agree about this licence business. Without a sensible
way of storing the licenses DRM is useless. Until they offer a sensible
system I will get my music in other ways. Maybe the worst thing of all was to
find out AFTERWARDS that all my licenses had gone with the wind. I've already
found out that some legal suppliers can't renew your licence if you bought
the music over a year ago.

"Spirefm" wrote in message
...

I have a huge music collection - their storage is the principal use of my
computer. I completely agree about this licence business. Without a
sensible
way of storing the licenses DRM is useless. Until they offer a sensible
system I will get my music in other ways. Maybe the worst thing of all was
to
find out AFTERWARDS that all my licenses had gone with the wind. I've
already
found out that some legal suppliers can't renew your licence if you bought
the music over a year ago.

I think that any company that produces a product that is "licenced" should
provide a hardcopy of that license (and product for intangible product, like
the disc when licensing an operating system) -OR- be able to reproduce
licences at the customers request. That is the ONLY fair way that licensing
can work.