I come back and my threads been closed.
Sorry if i offended anyone who manages or works for the doors.
I'm after a copy as i've got it on vinyl but no way of transfering it to my computer.
[url= http://pcworld.about.net/news/Apr162001id46164.htm ]HTH.[/url] And a lot less illegal.
did you pay for that food?!
Here you go. with bonus tracks too.
[url= http://www.play.com/Music/MP3-Download-Album/4-/7489036/The-Very-Best-Of/Product.html?searchtype=musicall&searchsource=0&searchstring=best+of+the+doors&urlrefer=search&strefer=musicall&searchfilters=s{best+of+the+doors}%2bc{34}%2b ]Clicky[/url]
They're still rubbish
I hope your going to make up for it by buying lots of merchandise and concert tickets next time they tour.
You cheapskate. Jim Morrison could do with the money, you know.
Oh...what's this about?
Oh...what's this about?
Getting music without paying for it.
Are 2nd hand CDs immoral? No royalties to artist, 1st owner will almost certainly have ripped the tracks before selling on.
Only differences to free downloads I can see is that 2nd hand sales have been around for as long as music, and there's a nominal cost (£2-3?). No difference to the artist.
[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B00004WEMT/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used ]http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B00004WEMT/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used[/url]
Illegal downloading?
Shame! I be no one on here does that!
Maybe true that people do download illegally, but it's bit stupid to go public, no?
Are 2nd hand CDs immoral? No royalties to artist, 1st owner will almost certainly have ripped the tracks before selling on
That's different. One set of listening rights, one CD. The original owner can no longer listen.
When you make a copy, there are two CDs now but only one set of rights has been purchased.
I suspect the mods removed it because they don't want their forum used for discussing illegal behaviour as I expect they could get in big trouble for it theoretically. I think that as the site owners they are responsible for the content - because they are publishing it.
I think that as the site owners they are responsible for the content - because they are publishing it.
When a site is moderated then the site owners become responsible for the content. If you want to discuss anything illegal or immoral or libelous then the place to do it is an unmoderated forum.
Two wholly unmoderated forums I can suggest: The comments section of the Daily Star and the comments section of the Daily Express. Not that I'm suggesting anyone go and have fun. 🙂
Ah, I didn't know there was a difference in law been moderated and un-moderated - makes perfect sense though of course.
I suspect the mods removed it because they don't want their forum used for discussing illegal behaviour
I very much doubt that, I've seen illegal drugs and illegal number plates discussed on here.
Ah, I didn't know there was a difference in law been moderated and un-moderated - makes perfect sense though of course
There isn't. The publisher is responsible for the content.
Discussing them is one thing, asking where to get them or can someone supply me is something else, because it's illegal. Talking about drugs is not.
And the publishers responsibility is limited. If something is brought to their attention and they remove it then they are not liable
But the main point here, which we are all missing is, would Jim Morrison really care?
But the main point here, which we are all missing is, would Jim Morrison really care?
yes, he would.
i remember him being very vocally opposed to napster when it first emerged, and he has also campaigned for ISPs to be forced to divulge personal details of file sharers to the courts etc.
Napster must have been pretty freaked out by being haunted by Jim Morrison.