If cover art is important, why not upgrade to MC15? I'm asking the question, not trying to get you to do it. It would be helpful to know.
I do own a license for MC (somewhere around here), I'll have to update to 15, but for the last couple of years, I have not been using all the features of MC and have opted for the freely available MJ on new installations/OS images. It's just easier that way (managing registrations/licenses/etc).
I could be mistaken, but as I recall the last time I upgraded, I found that MC does not allow one to natively rip to MP3. Another upgrade ($$$) / more frustration (LAME works externally, but command line options and a DOS window? puhleeez). So, even after paying to get MC, I still have less encoding-functionality than the Fraunhofer-MP3-enabled iTunes or MusicMatch (now defunct?). I hate to do it, but I might as well encode in iTunes and use MJ/MC for playback.
To charge for new features sounds fair. But, to take away a standard feature that has existed for years (and even advertised as such) is slightly devious. As a consumer in this digital age, I would expect to download a new version of a program and see all the features from the last version, not less.
"Best file organization of any digital music jukebox"
Will probably not apply now that the automatic cover-art has been disabled.
"Automatic CD, Album art and Track look-up"
Yeah, not so much.
I read a post a while back from another audio-centric user that would have paid for an audio-only version that was souped up (I think he was after ASIO functionality). I think there is a "simplified" or other modification to the MC user-interface, but maybe you need to add an AUDIO mode to MC to make it easier for us audio-people to upgrade to MC. In my mind, that AUDIO mode would be the paid version of MJ.
Thanks for reading.