...and it's not as if Bill Clinton getting a blowjob and stuffing monica with a cigar in any way threatened my freedom to come and go as I please.
It has nothing to do with a "liberal mindset" - although my idea of "liberal" is most likely not what you were imagining when you stuffed that strawman.
"Seldom in human history has good vs. evil been so clearly defined."
Uh huh. Tell that to "the office of homeland security."
How ironic you should complain about quality and tout "lossless" encoding when talking about direcTV. I HAD a direcTivo box - paid over 600 bucks for the whole setup as soon as it was available - and I had no reservations about letting it go. Cancelled the service, and stuck the hard drives in my old PC.
DirecTV has a shitty signal to begin with. There is no such thing as "lossless" because the signal is already overcompressed at the direcTV headquarters, before it even gets to the damn satellite. When I had it I often would "rip" the video to my PC through a capture card; given that comparisons with DVDs ripped this way (via my Panasonic A320) vs. VOB rips straight from the disc were nearly identical, worrying about "losses" when re-encoding the shit signal DTV sends out is absurd - it's like worrying about someone flooding the pool by peeing in it. I found I had to run the DirecTV caps through a very heavy filter chain to even get a picture I cared to preserve.
If you want quality, get a BOD for the yard and stick a few capture cards in a PC running MythTV. Or get a receiver with a SCSI port. Or say "fuck TV" and wait the six months until your favorite shows come out on DVD. If you want quality the last place you look is DirecTV; even the digital cable I've seen looked better.
If you look at the volume of archives posted to usenet (and elsewhere) it's pretty obvious that both these are simply trying to catch up to RAR. The only thing I use winzip for now is opening windows CAB files. And I'm pretty sure winrar does that, now, too.
"V" had its weaknesses but I still remember watching it every week even after it went to a series. We used to visit friends every thursday night and I still vividly recall one show starting out with a "fake news" report about motherships over washington that prompted my buddy, who was in the kitchen, to come running out exclaiming "WTF?" It was a wonderful "War of the Worlds" moment.
Anyone notice how many "nazi" films are showing up on TV lately? Gee, you don't think that could have anything at all to do with the atmosphere set by the current administration, do you?
You know, I really meant "free" both ways. And I might accept that part about it overtaking others, except I've seen no evidence of it yet. Honestly, I remember (a simpler time) when PHP (ignoring the ugly syntax) actually WAS ahead of the MS solution, but it's long since been overtaken and most of the attempts at overcoming this seem to just make it even uglier.
I've got a buncha linux machines here (in my home), too, but guess what I'm using to type this? I've yet to see a linux desktop environ that looks as slick and feels as cohesive as even my win2k desktop. It's been nearly ten years now - if what you say is true then it seems linux should be the most absolute kickass, user friendly desktop out there.. but it ain't, and not by a long shot. As convoluted and messy as win32 has become, the linux desktop STILL can't compete in overall "feel" with MS (much less Apple). Why is that?
Go stick your email address in a few of those "free membership" porn websites and watch the river flow.
Tangentially to your diversion, I'm amazed that an account I created explicitly for posting to usenet, even after posting it in a couple of PORN newsgroups last month, remains virtually spam-free. Oh, the irony...
there are LOTS of 8 year olds out there with cellphones. My buddy and I went to see the spice girls when they played the forum in LA and we were both amazed how many parents were dropping their kids off in packs - most of them toting cellphones. During (the interminably long, 40 minute) intermission (complete with nonstop ads on the bigscreen for everything from pepsi to tampax) the 9 year old (certainly no more than 10) next to us whipped out her Nokia with the spice girls and powerpuff girls stickers on the neon pink faceplate and called home to check in.
Schools all over the country are changing their rules to allow kids to carry cellphones. If I had an 8 year old kid in public school you bet your ass she'd have a cellphone with her. The reason this has nothing at all to do with email is, of course, even with cellphones I can look at the bill every month and track every one of her calls back to the sender's number. Ever tried to do that with email spam?
But in all seriousness, it was my experience while volunteering in a MS tech support chatroom (back when comic chat was sorta popular) there ARE teenage boys who don't want to see that shit. I've even had people drop in the room to ask where they could contact a trustworthy adult to report someone who had sent them something either via file xfer or url.
Something does need to be done, but I don't see how any of it can be fixed without changing the basic infrastructure of email communications.
History would suggest what isn't true? That it's easy to flow from client to server when it's all the same language? That most people don't think of vbscript and MS when they think of ASP?
Netscape's "solution" was proprietary and costly. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong solution; apache was catching on quite well when they were trying to sell kilobuck server "solutions" and balkanize the web - and the geeks who spoke "web" back then (ie you couldn't walk down the street and shout to find a "web developer") spoke perl and cgi. Given the choice of supporting open and community supported vs. expensive and supporting the company that is trying to "own the internet" who would you expect to win that battle?
Why are the server and the client "separate?" They are separate physical entities, but when one is making an app it's all one unit; the browser is the GUI, the server the "hard stuff inside." Do you write command line apps in c and then write the desktop interface in pascal? Isn't that the discongruous approach taken by MS in so many VB interface/c backend applications that typically fall under so much distrespect here?
You seem to have missed it before so I'll say it again: you do not need MS in order to use javascript (and even ASP) on the server. And even on my worse day I would not defend VBscript - nor is ASP vbscript, so it doesn't matter. Saying "ASP sucks" is absolutely NOT the same as saying "vbscript sucks" - and vice versa.
PHP has a lot of user developed modules, but it still lacks a lot of the things provided right OOTB with MS ASP (or chilisoft with java). Using java alone will also get you that same power and more, but php on a good day doesn't come close to either even WITH all those widgets.
And if you want docs there are easily as many "javascript toolbox" sites as there are PHP - probably more, in fact, since it IS supported by MS in ASP and most of that code can be used in apache just as well. Honestly, the only thing I can see going for PHP is it's free - and in this case the "free" solution well proves that old adage about getting what you pay for.
So why do even the PHP people generically refer to it as a language?
Can I get an ECMA engine for it?
Speaking of FUD
on
PHP Cookbook
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
ASP is not a language. PHP is a language (I'm being generous here). BASIC is a language. Java is a language. Javascript is a language.
Speaking as someone who has worked with both, php2asp is about as useful as those "pascal2c" tools that were so common a decade ago. It works in only the simplest of cases, and rarely supports the internal objects supported by most ASP languages (ie vbscript and jscript).
PHP blows chunks. It's too bad such a shitty little "language" has taken on such proportion simply because it was, for a while, the only "better" alternative on linux/apache to perl (an even shittier, even more cryptic little language).
Since the "language of browsers" is ECMAscript it makes sense to use that on the server, too, so one doesn't have to constantly shift back and forth between languages. And one doesn't HAVE to use an MS product in order to do so. It's really too bad so many otherwise intelligent folk abide the braindead notion that ECMA(java)script = ASP = MS.
I can't believe no one has noticed to comment on this:
Jesse knew students were sharing files on his network: pictures, PowerPoint presentations, physics notes, anime, and music. But he refutes the RIAA's claim he "hijacked an academic network" and "installed an emporium for music trading."
Notice in the paragraph previous they point out it was the college campus network he was using to host his search engine. Search engines don't balkanize networks; search engines don't require special clients. This wasn't "his" network anymore than the internet is "Google's network" - but this is how the mouse sells the story to the sheep...
I didn't even waste my karma on that comment, but I fail to see how expression of an opinion on that ugly POS is "off topic." What else is the point of this being on the front page?
That PC is fucking hideous. It looks like one of those shitty overdesigned chinese boomboxes with the lights that mean nothing and the knobs that do nothing.
12.9.98 Take the Noise
(from NME.com web site)
PUBLIC ENEMY, who had been putting up tracks from their forthcoming remix album 'Bring the Noise 2000' in MP-3 format files on their web site, have been forced to remove them by their record company.
Duuuuuhhh... When you sign a contract giving a label exclusive rights to your work, no (duh), you can't just go out on your own while still under contract. This is the main obstacle PE faced and you cannot blame the corruption of the record industry for that. If you work for a company the chances are you also signed a similar agreement when you became gainfully employed there - one granting to your employer full "rights" to any "inventions" you might make while under contract. Such exclusive license is not in any way limited to the "corrupt" music industry. In this case they were "giving away" tracks that had already been promised to their publisher - that means their publisher had exclusive license to distribute those works. It doesn't mean they had license to everything the band ever does, but it does mean they controlled those works - no one forced Chuck D to sign on that dotted line.
So far as selling recordings long after a musician dies - well, yeah. It's too bad how many musicians have been treated, but that has nothing to do with the fact the recordings are still owned by the labels. What if you play a part in a film? Should that film become your property after X years? How do you decide who it should belong to? The Director? The Executive Producer? The leading man? the leading lady?
Music is the same. A recording is not one guy sitting alone in his garage singing into a tape recorder - and when it is guess what? Those guys don't need the majors in order to survive the long haul. In most every other case a recording is the product of dozens of people (including several musicians), none of whom would be in that place at that time without the machine.
If an artist, in today's market, isn't smart enough to know all that machine represents - and, in many cases, their ultimate goal is to become part of that machine - then it is not my right (or yours) to tell them otherwise.
So far as DRM locking away works forever - well, that's fucking absurd. Those recordings (an their right to license them) are the only assets publishers have - they are not going to let them wither away. Even when they've been locked away for twenty years they are still an asset because no one knows where trends and fads will go and they always represent a potentially licensable product. DVDs use DRM and I have heard no one bitching about "we're gonna lose The Matrix in 100 years because all existing copies are locked away in DRM!" In fact, every film and audio recording stands a better chance in the long run because the publishers release damn near everything, no matter how badly they expect it to do.
Publishers keep master recordings so long as they can because that is the bread and butter of their business. And when a publisher goes out of business those recordings do not magically disappear - they are moved to vaults of the new company, because those are also the new company's bread and butter. There have been a few rare cases where historical recordings were transcribed from shellac or wax because those are the only recordings that exist, but when talking about the contemporary music and film industry such a notion is fairly absurd. Derivative rights are far too valuable nowdays to be treated so carelessly; if anything, today's market ensures works will get better care than in the past, because there's always the chance of releasing a mega-DVD of a film or TV show or a "lost sessions" recording of a now dead artist. In such a market DRM i
What does it matter? I go to the store, I buy a pair of tires, I have them put on my car. How does that tell them who I am? You think all this stuff is going into some giant database of "who owns these tires?" Fine - pay cash and when they ask for your name tell'em puddin' tang.
I am far more concerned about my ISP recording all the personal info I send through it every day - passwords, IDs, even these posts. So long as stores take cash RFID will mean a whole lotta nothing when it comes to privacy; your decision to use plastic for every purchase is yours to make. But if the government (or corporations) want to spy on you they damn sure don't need RFID tags embedded in car tires to do it. Got a cell phone?
Labels don't own the song - they own the recording they contracted. The artist is free to record the song again (once the exclusive contract with their label is up) and free to perform the song - this is how they make their money. The record deal is like signing with an ad agency; you hope you have something they'll want to sell, and if they do you sing a record deal and get to live like a rock star while driving yourself deeply in debt on the hopes you'll sell enough units to recoup. The record company puts up the money, but the only "songs" they own are the recordings the artist makes under contract.
Think about this: ever noticed how those talentless pop bands always play with a recording? Who do you think owns the recording? When they play on TV, whose recording is that backing them up?
It's the hit version which is owned by the label.
Now, the artists can go out on their own and perform live if they choose - but what do they do when they suck and the label won't let them have their "live" backup recording? Or what happens when a fan at a "live" show asks to jack into the mic board? The artist has the right to perform live, and the artist controls their work not signed to the label - but suddenly the issue of recording a live show isn't just up to the artist because the label still owns "the music" (the backup recording) being played in this "live" venue.
This is how so many "artists" get trapped by labels: even if they have talent and can perform onstage, the audience wants to hear the hyped up version from the radio - they just go to the shows to see the shaved monkies dance and wiggle onstage. Strip away the Hollywood glamour and they're suddenly forced to cater to a very different audience - one to which a great many "stars" cannot relate, because they have absolutely nothing to offer that audience.
Well, yes... If you don't count that fact that stores keep track of every item you ever purchase, then no, there was no loss of privacy at all.
Uh, what? If you have a problem with them tracking every item you purchase then you need to stop paying for everything with credit or cheques. I buy stuff all the time even with (shudder!) a Kroger savings card and ya know what? Kroger don't know a damn thing about me. It's not like they take your driver's license number to fill out one of those stupid things; it's not like you can't lie.
It really amazes me how so many people tie themselves intimately to corporations and then bitch about the loss of privacy. If you value your privacy, tell'em to go to hell. Shop with the local merchants while they still exist; stop using plastic every time you buy a damn pack of gum and you won't have to worry about it - or open a numbered swiss account and get a debit card drawn on it.
I think the idea was that people could track what you purchased after you left the store, which is a bit more insidious.
Apparently the notion of removing the damn tag is completely alien to the tinfoil hat crowd.
How poetic. Bjork said something great once about poets and truth, which I will leave you to research on your own.
I dunno where you get "since the industrial revolution." Didn't you read about Lords and serfs? About slaves? As I recall these practices predate the industrial revolution by several Millenia. Or is it your argument that slavery and ruthless exploitation aren't based on greed?
Standard deal is 3 or 7 albums - right? That means you sign to a label and get a name; after three (or 7) releases (and providing there is no recoupment clause contracting you to more) then you're free as a bird. There's nothing at all to stop you from re-recording all those hits you once had and selling them yourself on your own label. The fact it's so rarely done (even in the case of Prince who, as I pointed out earlier has even stalled on this plan in spite of his hatred for his old label) is because there's not that much of a market for it. The reason those old recordings sold is because they were hammered into people's heads; far fewer people want to collect several versions of the same song by the same artist - they want to hear the hit version.
So, if you're an artist with a name and want to go it alone, you need to either develop a following for your live performances, or develop some new material. Many artists have made this leap and been very successful - many more are session musicians or used car dealers because they can't come up with something new and marketable outside the machine. This is why I have no remorse about losing the machine; we need neither it nor the vapid "artists" it creates.
Notice that Pearl Jam is leaving their label? Add another one to the roster of acts that are wising up and leaving the machine to rust to a heap.
I would say that depends on who you are. Since many artists also wrote the songs they perform, they get (roughly) those same royalties.
And, in the example of Sinatra, I also doubt that is true. Look over his Capitol and Reprise discography and see how many times his bigger hits are repeated. Those aren't simple reissues of the same recordings; every time he cut a new deal (for more money) all those classics got re-recorded. The guy knew how to play the game, that's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with a "liberal mindset" - although my idea of "liberal" is most likely not what you were imagining when you stuffed that strawman.
"Seldom in human history has good vs. evil been so clearly defined." Uh huh. Tell that to "the office of homeland security."
DirecTV has a shitty signal to begin with. There is no such thing as "lossless" because the signal is already overcompressed at the direcTV headquarters, before it even gets to the damn satellite. When I had it I often would "rip" the video to my PC through a capture card; given that comparisons with DVDs ripped this way (via my Panasonic A320) vs. VOB rips straight from the disc were nearly identical, worrying about "losses" when re-encoding the shit signal DTV sends out is absurd - it's like worrying about someone flooding the pool by peeing in it. I found I had to run the DirecTV caps through a very heavy filter chain to even get a picture I cared to preserve.
If you want quality, get a BOD for the yard and stick a few capture cards in a PC running MythTV. Or get a receiver with a SCSI port. Or say "fuck TV" and wait the six months until your favorite shows come out on DVD. If you want quality the last place you look is DirecTV; even the digital cable I've seen looked better.
If you look at the volume of archives posted to usenet (and elsewhere) it's pretty obvious that both these are simply trying to catch up to RAR. The only thing I use winzip for now is opening windows CAB files. And I'm pretty sure winrar does that, now, too.
Anyone notice how many "nazi" films are showing up on TV lately? Gee, you don't think that could have anything at all to do with the atmosphere set by the current administration, do you?
I've got a buncha linux machines here (in my home), too, but guess what I'm using to type this? I've yet to see a linux desktop environ that looks as slick and feels as cohesive as even my win2k desktop. It's been nearly ten years now - if what you say is true then it seems linux should be the most absolute kickass, user friendly desktop out there.. but it ain't, and not by a long shot. As convoluted and messy as win32 has become, the linux desktop STILL can't compete in overall "feel" with MS (much less Apple). Why is that?
Tangentially to your diversion, I'm amazed that an account I created explicitly for posting to usenet, even after posting it in a couple of PORN newsgroups last month, remains virtually spam-free. Oh, the irony...
Schools all over the country are changing their rules to allow kids to carry cellphones. If I had an 8 year old kid in public school you bet your ass she'd have a cellphone with her. The reason this has nothing at all to do with email is, of course, even with cellphones I can look at the bill every month and track every one of her calls back to the sender's number. Ever tried to do that with email spam?
Something does need to be done, but I don't see how any of it can be fixed without changing the basic infrastructure of email communications.
Netscape's "solution" was proprietary and costly. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong solution; apache was catching on quite well when they were trying to sell kilobuck server "solutions" and balkanize the web - and the geeks who spoke "web" back then (ie you couldn't walk down the street and shout to find a "web developer") spoke perl and cgi. Given the choice of supporting open and community supported vs. expensive and supporting the company that is trying to "own the internet" who would you expect to win that battle?
You seem to have missed it before so I'll say it again: you do not need MS in order to use javascript (and even ASP) on the server. And even on my worse day I would not defend VBscript - nor is ASP vbscript, so it doesn't matter. Saying "ASP sucks" is absolutely NOT the same as saying "vbscript sucks" - and vice versa.
PHP has a lot of user developed modules, but it still lacks a lot of the things provided right OOTB with MS ASP (or chilisoft with java). Using java alone will also get you that same power and more, but php on a good day doesn't come close to either even WITH all those widgets.
And if you want docs there are easily as many "javascript toolbox" sites as there are PHP - probably more, in fact, since it IS supported by MS in ASP and most of that code can be used in apache just as well. Honestly, the only thing I can see going for PHP is it's free - and in this case the "free" solution well proves that old adage about getting what you pay for.
I gotta remember to read all the replies before adding mine...
Can I get an ECMA engine for it?
Speaking as someone who has worked with both, php2asp is about as useful as those "pascal2c" tools that were so common a decade ago. It works in only the simplest of cases, and rarely supports the internal objects supported by most ASP languages (ie vbscript and jscript).
PHP blows chunks. It's too bad such a shitty little "language" has taken on such proportion simply because it was, for a while, the only "better" alternative on linux/apache to perl (an even shittier, even more cryptic little language).
Since the "language of browsers" is ECMAscript it makes sense to use that on the server, too, so one doesn't have to constantly shift back and forth between languages. And one doesn't HAVE to use an MS product in order to do so. It's really too bad so many otherwise intelligent folk abide the braindead notion that ECMA(java)script = ASP = MS.
Jesse knew students were sharing files on his network: pictures, PowerPoint presentations, physics notes, anime, and music. But he refutes the RIAA's claim he "hijacked an academic network" and "installed an emporium for music trading."
Notice in the paragraph previous they point out it was the college campus network he was using to host his search engine. Search engines don't balkanize networks; search engines don't require special clients. This wasn't "his" network anymore than the internet is "Google's network" - but this is how the mouse sells the story to the sheep...
OMG I laughed so hard I squirted breast milk out my nose. Yes, that's it exactly.
That PC is fucking hideous. It looks like one of those shitty overdesigned chinese boomboxes with the lights that mean nothing and the knobs that do nothing.
What a clusterfuck.
Duuuuuhhh... When you sign a contract giving a label exclusive rights to your work, no (duh), you can't just go out on your own while still under contract. This is the main obstacle PE faced and you cannot blame the corruption of the record industry for that. If you work for a company the chances are you also signed a similar agreement when you became gainfully employed there - one granting to your employer full "rights" to any "inventions" you might make while under contract. Such exclusive license is not in any way limited to the "corrupt" music industry. In this case they were "giving away" tracks that had already been promised to their publisher - that means their publisher had exclusive license to distribute those works. It doesn't mean they had license to everything the band ever does, but it does mean they controlled those works - no one forced Chuck D to sign on that dotted line.
So far as selling recordings long after a musician dies - well, yeah. It's too bad how many musicians have been treated, but that has nothing to do with the fact the recordings are still owned by the labels. What if you play a part in a film? Should that film become your property after X years? How do you decide who it should belong to? The Director? The Executive Producer? The leading man? the leading lady?
Music is the same. A recording is not one guy sitting alone in his garage singing into a tape recorder - and when it is guess what? Those guys don't need the majors in order to survive the long haul. In most every other case a recording is the product of dozens of people (including several musicians), none of whom would be in that place at that time without the machine.
If an artist, in today's market, isn't smart enough to know all that machine represents - and, in many cases, their ultimate goal is to become part of that machine - then it is not my right (or yours) to tell them otherwise.
So far as DRM locking away works forever - well, that's fucking absurd. Those recordings (an their right to license them) are the only assets publishers have - they are not going to let them wither away. Even when they've been locked away for twenty years they are still an asset because no one knows where trends and fads will go and they always represent a potentially licensable product. DVDs use DRM and I have heard no one bitching about "we're gonna lose The Matrix in 100 years because all existing copies are locked away in DRM!" In fact, every film and audio recording stands a better chance in the long run because the publishers release damn near everything, no matter how badly they expect it to do.
Publishers keep master recordings so long as they can because that is the bread and butter of their business. And when a publisher goes out of business those recordings do not magically disappear - they are moved to vaults of the new company, because those are also the new company's bread and butter. There have been a few rare cases where historical recordings were transcribed from shellac or wax because those are the only recordings that exist, but when talking about the contemporary music and film industry such a notion is fairly absurd. Derivative rights are far too valuable nowdays to be treated so carelessly; if anything, today's market ensures works will get better care than in the past, because there's always the chance of releasing a mega-DVD of a film or TV show or a "lost sessions" recording of a now dead artist. In such a market DRM i
I am far more concerned about my ISP recording all the personal info I send through it every day - passwords, IDs, even these posts. So long as stores take cash RFID will mean a whole lotta nothing when it comes to privacy; your decision to use plastic for every purchase is yours to make. But if the government (or corporations) want to spy on you they damn sure don't need RFID tags embedded in car tires to do it. Got a cell phone?
Think about this: ever noticed how those talentless pop bands always play with a recording? Who do you think owns the recording? When they play on TV, whose recording is that backing them up?
It's the hit version which is owned by the label.
Now, the artists can go out on their own and perform live if they choose - but what do they do when they suck and the label won't let them have their "live" backup recording? Or what happens when a fan at a "live" show asks to jack into the mic board? The artist has the right to perform live, and the artist controls their work not signed to the label - but suddenly the issue of recording a live show isn't just up to the artist because the label still owns "the music" (the backup recording) being played in this "live" venue.
This is how so many "artists" get trapped by labels: even if they have talent and can perform onstage, the audience wants to hear the hyped up version from the radio - they just go to the shows to see the shaved monkies dance and wiggle onstage. Strip away the Hollywood glamour and they're suddenly forced to cater to a very different audience - one to which a great many "stars" cannot relate, because they have absolutely nothing to offer that audience.
You really don't read much, do you?
Uh, what? If you have a problem with them tracking every item you purchase then you need to stop paying for everything with credit or cheques. I buy stuff all the time even with (shudder!) a Kroger savings card and ya know what? Kroger don't know a damn thing about me. It's not like they take your driver's license number to fill out one of those stupid things; it's not like you can't lie.
It really amazes me how so many people tie themselves intimately to corporations and then bitch about the loss of privacy. If you value your privacy, tell'em to go to hell. Shop with the local merchants while they still exist; stop using plastic every time you buy a damn pack of gum and you won't have to worry about it - or open a numbered swiss account and get a debit card drawn on it.
I think the idea was that people could track what you purchased after you left the store, which is a bit more insidious.
Apparently the notion of removing the damn tag is completely alien to the tinfoil hat crowd.
I dunno where you get "since the industrial revolution." Didn't you read about Lords and serfs? About slaves? As I recall these practices predate the industrial revolution by several Millenia. Or is it your argument that slavery and ruthless exploitation aren't based on greed?
So, if you're an artist with a name and want to go it alone, you need to either develop a following for your live performances, or develop some new material. Many artists have made this leap and been very successful - many more are session musicians or used car dealers because they can't come up with something new and marketable outside the machine. This is why I have no remorse about losing the machine; we need neither it nor the vapid "artists" it creates.
Notice that Pearl Jam is leaving their label? Add another one to the roster of acts that are wising up and leaving the machine to rust to a heap.
And, in the example of Sinatra, I also doubt that is true. Look over his Capitol and Reprise discography and see how many times his bigger hits are repeated. Those aren't simple reissues of the same recordings; every time he cut a new deal (for more money) all those classics got re-recorded. The guy knew how to play the game, that's for sure.