Let me put it that way: better a high dpi scanned cover without any editing than no cover at all.
beside that I still do not agree.
first a comparison of different resizings
you have to look at it at 100% screen size. From top to bottom:
Photoshop CS6 Workspace
Irfanview in Resample Mode
In all resized versions there is a pattern except the descreened (there is just some noise); firefox resamples best, chrome worst.
What I don't get is, why store the screen pattern when you are not supposed to see it. You look at a album cover from ~30cm distance, you should not see the screen and if you do, it is a really bad print (hello naxos). I just don't see the benefit, I just see the disadvantage: bigger filesize and probably emerging patterns when it is resized.
why would anyone want that? just because we can store that information does not mean it is reasonable to do it.
I just don't think that an unaltered reproduction is necessarily most "true" representation. I don't correct typos, but I correct shine through, yellowed paper, faded color, dust, scratches; I correct the printing grid if the different color screens are not perfectly aligned (convert to CMYK and align the channels manually),.. So yeah, if I think the printing process introduced some loss or artifacts I try to remove them.