I don't think it's that they were badly mastered in the first place just that it was limited by the technology available then. Mind you I have no knowledge or experience of recording so am probably wrong.
I also refused to buy the reissue of The Stone Roses as they've taken the piss more then the Beatles have for this sort of thing.Although I don't actually own any Beatles stuff so may be tempted this time.

I bought the Beatles albums when they first came out in the 60s, bought stereo versions in the 70s, the full set of 45s when they were first reissued later in that decade and then I bought them all over again on CD. In the case of "Let It Be" I was offered the chance to buy it once more as "Let It Be Naked".

I wonder if I could justifiably claim to have bought these records by now. I'd be interested to know what EMI's lawyers have to say about this.

I think I have a pretty good idea about what they would have to say.

I Limewired several choice Joy Division tracks - I have them on vinyl and tape, all the albums and singles. They've had enough of my cash, so I figured it was ok. I wouldn't do it to a new artist.

..vehemently disagree.

It's like saying that every time BMW bring out an updated model they should upgrade all existing owners of the previous model - FOR FREE ! It's ridiculous. Record companies spent money creating the original product, and are seeking ways of maximising their return by offering improved versions of the original over time. In the Beatles case, the cost of the re-mastering has been significant. Why should you get it for nothing ?

I'd say it's more akin to buying Windows XP and then downloading the patches that make it work better/safer - (coded by staff who have to be paid and hich Microsoft provide free).

You've paid for the original product - the intellectual rights and publishing have been satisfied - the record company are just polishing what was wrong in the first place.

Not as if the alloy wheels needed those carbon fibre brakes...

A report from The Loudness Wars

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13425-stereo-box-in-mono/

for example. But only on the proviso that you'd, say shelled out £280 in the official liverpool beatles shop in 1998 for the full set in a breadbin. Yes that would be fair i think. Hypothetically speaking.

I've found myself in a situation where I own a cd, have put it into storage, and fancy listening to it again.

Would it be naughty to download it, to save me the ball ache of finding it?

Stop press.... I have Spotify Mobile now, so problem solved - but nevertheless, an interesting moral point.

Agree with the 'I wouldn't do it to new artists' view. Decided to buy the remastered Past Masters CD which I haven't bought before...and will take it from there.

And here's your head.

..it's the only way to go.
If you have them (I do) don't give those twats at Apple/EMI any more money.

If I ripped my entire CD collection to iTunes and then sold the CDs off would the ripped versions still be legal?