Does anyone know where to find DSD versions of any artists anyone has heard of?

Siltech817 · February 11, 2018

16 minutes ago, bigbob said:

--but I am a cheap audiophile, not an attorney...

I think maybe you are just overthinking things a bit? It's really as simple as @kumakuma put it, when you copy the library CD, even if just for your own personal use, you haven't paid the copyright holder for an additional license, have you? So they've been paid once for media which there are now 2 copies in use. In a broader sense, how could either the artist or the record label continue in business if your way of doing things became widespread? There are lots of libraries and even lots more people, if this became the norm the music creation business would at some point collapse, no?

You really have no leg to stand on here, not legally or otherwise, and I'm thinking this site's owner has in the past chimed in on this topic in other threads to say exactly what has been stated here, it is not ok to take a copyrighted work as your own without having paid for it.

All things legal aside, it isn't even remotely defensible from an ethical perspective, and being a cheapskate is not a defense.

Siltech817 · February 11, 2018

17 minutes ago, bigbob said:

I drew that conclusion an hour ago, but it is Sunday, no football, so let us joust here on the Internet. The self-righteous vs. the @cheapaudiophile...

So I guess you have never heard of Limetorrents, PiratesBay, and other BitTorrent sites?

As the writer said earlier about SACD and DSD are not new-- neither has the barn door been closed for quite some time.

I spent my career working for a News Agency, and part of my compensation was a royalty to be paid from gross revenues in the syndication and re-selling of my copyrighted images. This was to be something irrevocable and assured us that we would have some income from our work.

Then that agency was purchased, and the terms were changed. Now, all images were sold on subscription, and the royalties clause eliminated in the new contract.

Oh, you had to go there... I am a right below knee amputee, so a phrase like "You don't have a leg to stand on", from your perspective is just a quaint turn of a phrase.

Nor is being an ignorant Bigot an excuse to disrespect members of the Audiophile Community who are disabled, not wealthy, or employed.

Now, one last time-- I am not advocating sharing ripped files on file-sharing.

I am talking about ripping a CD--whether you purchased it, or borrowed it, or bought it second hand at a yard sale. I am talking, on a forum about Computer Audiophiles about DSD being a paid service--a subscription service.

Have you ever ripped a CD? And how will you defend the possession of files, which you ripped?

Have you the receipts where you purchased the CD?

So, you say you ripped the CD so you could easily manage your music library with a music server. You made a copy for your personal use, correct? Is that fair use? ONLY IF YOU PAID FULL PRICE, some would say. But, what about buying a box full of CDs from the neighbors' garage sale. Yes, please show where you reimbursed the artist for their royalty. Just ASCAP and BMI, thank you.

You are a legal scofflaw unless you can prove the purchase provenance of every music file in your hard-drive, external storage, NAS, cloud. Subpeonas are being drawn as we speak. Sure there are Terrorists, and Drug Cartels, but these people ripping CDs from the local library is where the taxpayers want their dollars spent on enforcement....

When the Feds really decide to make the crack-down on the plague of people ripping SACDs in their Blu-Ray player, or some other crimes of great significance,

I will still remind you that any CD Rip is potentially a copyright violation.

And the reason why they have copiers in the public library is so you can infringe upon the author's royalties.

Does it make economic sense to go after a single end-user-- or would you go after Spotify, with its ubiquity-- who has apparently played songs that they did not license?

Now stop thinking so hard...

I'll stop right there then, you've misquoted me, intentionally or otherwise, at the very beginning of your post above. I'm thinking intentional in order to take a simultaneous stab at another member. You've also violates the site rules with your nasty name calling.

All of my previous points stand, and your attempt at sympathy is in very poor taste.

No one ever said anything about "going after" a single entity, nor any other party, those are you words. Similarly, no one ever said you were illegally sharing these files, again, your words. You did however advocate the idea of ripping library CDs you don't own, and that is neither legal nor ethical.

Good day sir, enjoy the cheapskate lifestyle and it's online persona/mantra.