I am having serious thoughts about selling my 1,500 or so CD collection and going to MP3 playback format. At one time I use to have the time and sit in front of my system and really listen, I mean sit and really get into the music. Now with two kids, and the band that I play guitar in, there is simply no time. My listening consists of in the car or in the house while I am doing something else. I am thinking about ripping my collection to my computer, selling the CDs and my CD player and using a large storage MP3 player as my source. Any thoughts? Anyone else out there do this?
I think the polnt is that people will pay nothing if they can. Copywrite laws have found a temporary solution of one copy for your self or in other areas for personal use.
I don't know how this willl be resolved but clearly the cat is out of the bag for the old format. Digital can easily be copied and electronically transmitted. No law is going to stop this from happening and no amount of ethical argument will solve this. I think the record companies are dead. How the artists will make a living seem very uncertain.
I don't see how A and B are any different. In both cases two copies of the recording are out there and only one has been paid for. The artist hasn't been compensated fairly, and hasn't been properly credited in either case.
My lay opinion is with Neil. If he sold the copy he'd be in trouble. The CD belongs to him and he can sell it if he likes. Have you considered going to law scholl?
The RIAA has NOT created a red herring about artists. It's true that the record labels make the vast majority of the money from each CD sale, but the fact is that artists need CD sales that much more in order to make money. As I said above, if a CD fails to sell enough copies to recoup all of the costs associated with recording, manufacturing, and marketing the album, an artist can end up OWING the record company money at the end of the day. Furthermore, every time a label takes a risk on an artist who isn't just a rehash of all the other drivel on the market (in other words supports an artist that is more likely to be an audiophile favorite), they're less likely to take any more chances if the venture doesn't pan out. Like any other BUSINESS, the recording industry is all about profit, and if you don't put your dollars behind your opinion and tastes, you're going to see yourself under, or god forbid un-represented in the market. The only way we can really effectively shape the course of the recording industry is by buying what we like. Nobody is going to release the records you want to hear unless there's a sizable market, and unless you're happy with limited release, overpriced audiophile pressings as your only source of your favorite music (which will also go away if not supported), you should be doing all that you can to speak your mind through your purchases.
Again, please don't do more to dilute the market and devalue what brings us all to this forum and others like it - music - by selling your CDs but retaining the music that they hold. Would you want someone purchasing whatever product or service you offer, and then selling it while retaining a duplicate?
If you bought the cd, it is yours. Copying it for resale is unlawful. Copying it for personal use is not. Copying it for personal use and then deciding to sell the cd, seems to me a gray area.
I think that RIAA has created a red herring about the artists. Mainly it is the record companies wanting to get more money through selling more cds.
I would not sell my cds as I think MP3 is crap and someday you might come to agree. Your kids grow up too fast and come to appreciate your music.
Again, it's a little disheartening seeing so many supposed music lovers who don't even think twice about contributing to the widespread screwing of recording musicians (this applies particularly to those who aren't selling out arenas and selling millions of albums). As far as I'm concerned we all need to do everything we can to get the artists that we like paid, or else the labels are going to stop supporting good, original music all together in favor of groups that have a proven track record of making tons of money. I hear people complain daily about the lack of quality music and anything but cookie cutter bands coming from the big labels, and the reason why we got here is because the types of artists we like aren't making money for the labels (which means the artists REALLY aren't making money). This is really much more of an ethical question than a legal one. The cops aren't going to bust down your door for ripping your CDs and then selling the originals, but you're not exactly helping the artists or our cause either.
Bianchi, if you have a lot of time to waste, go here and see how widely opinions vary on this topic. I don't think there will be an answer unless it is tested in the courts.
Maybe you already sold your CD's, but you could have considered getting them ripped to lossless FLAC at a cost of about 1.20$/CD. Then you have everything. Sell your CD's, but still have full audio quality backed up to DVDs in the event that you buy a system capable of showing the difference between lossy and lossless file format. Ok, there is the issue of having your music and selling it, but that's a whole different discussion. Check for eg, https://secure.slimdevices.com/order/ripping.cgi
I have to be very honest, listening to my iPod through my Jolida 302b / Tyler Acoustic Ref. Monitors sounds damn good!Going back and forth between my iPod an Joida CDP, there is not much difference. Also, it is pretty exciting to have all my music in one small pack that I can bring anywhere and hook up to any source. So far I have 11,600 songs stored on my 80gig iPod. I still have more CDs to rip to my computer / iPod, I have plenty of storage space left. BTW, I still have some CDs left for sale.
I ripped my CD's to MP3 some time back. Now doing the whole thing over again & ripping to FLAC file format. Even at my advanced age (58), my ears can hear the difference between an Mp3 and a FLAC. Now almost stopped using my CD player too as streaming all from my computer via a Slimdevices Transporter.
Think twice before selling! The MP3 files ain't as good as that which you are selling!!
what about the time when we all flouted the copyright law of making copy versions on a cassette deck (to play them in the car) of our favourite LP's. Fine so far in a copyright perspective, but when the LP was no longer playable and we dumped it, what then?
Gretsch6120, are you really sure that you want to sell all your CDs for MP3? Sounds like something you might regret down the road. 1500 CDs don't take that much space to store (unlike 1500 LPs).
Are you keeping a lossless version around on harddrive in addition to MP3? I would make sure to do at least that. Upgrades to your system or changes in your listening behaviour might reveal some of the flaws in MP3. Its good to have at least a full version around.
An update. I am almost complete with ripping my CD collection to my computer. It has been going very smoothly, just doing a few at a time. I purchased two hard drives, on internal and one external. So I am saving the mp3 files to three locations, my computers main hard drive, and the two extra ones I purchased. I also just purchased an 80 gig iPod, so I am storing them to 4 locations. I listened to my iPod this morning on the way to work, it sounds fantastic connected to my cars system! I am more that pleased with my decision to go with mp3 audio.
Here is what I would do, copy them all to your hard drive as lossless wma or mp3 format and then eventually save them on DVD-rom dics. DVD roms when scratched don't suffer the same way cd's do and you won't have to keep all your music on a hard disc that might crash, in the future when you do have the time you can "listen" to your archived lossless music archives on a audiophile quality universal player that plays mp3's or wma files. The lossless files should sound as good as your CD's now and scratching the discs won't affect the playback.
Actually, the quoted section was misquoting Herman's post before yours... ;)
B'sides, "[n]one agreed on the interpretation of the copywright law as it applies to the area we are discussing" is basically where blog comes out. I think my point in citing the blog was the fact that it spelled out the actual controversy under the law--and the relevant statutory provisions--fairly well. This is not some well considered digital policy issue before the courts, its the intersection of the relatively ancient First Sale Doctrine and the relatively ancient law of Fair Use. The copyright laws were not written with digital media in mind, and haven't changed for a while. The courts are banging square pegs into round holes.
I totally agree with your last two points. Given the vagueness of the law, keeping CDs--in my mind, even if the law itself is screwy--makes practical sense as an last resort backup, makes practical sense in terms of a legal defense should you ever need it, and moral sense in that it seems to me to be the right thing to do as a means of avoiding the bypassing of artist compensation.
Fair enough, we can differ on whether the RIAA is on a general hunt to track down and sue consumers; if you do some research, I think the facts there *are* objectively pretty dismal.
Dismissing Patry's blog as "just another blog" or saying you don't lend any credence to it because its on the internet does not do you credit, however. Patry isn't just some dude with wordpress. His resume is on the website and easily authenticated. FBOW, he is a leading policy scholar in the copyright field--"Senior Copyright Counsel, Google Inc. Former copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary; Policy Planning Advisor to the Register of Copyrights; Law Professor Georgetown Law Center (adjunct), Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (full-time faculty member, founding director L.L.M in Intellectual Property program), author of numerous treatises and articles (including one on fair use with Judge Richard Posner), including a forthcoming multi-volume treatise on copyright." It's not exactly a punter's resume, even though Posner isn't my favorite academic.
Besides, I think we may be in violent agreement, except for our respective views on the RIAA. I was just trying to answer your question on the "proof" issue by noting that, as a practical matter, the legal process is a very expensive way to discern truth. So expensive, in fact, that the actual truth of the matter may be irrelevant when matching an experienced and well funded litigant against a consumer who is a neophyte to the court system.
Yes, interesting, but it is almost a year old and just that; a blog. Who knows if this person, whoever they may be since there is no way to authenticate who it is, has any better handle on this than anyone else.
Tvad, the "copyright police" aren't going to believe anything you say, if past precedents hold true. They simply sue you based on some evidence of some kind, and then you are locked in litigation. The judge, theoretically, will weigh the facts and give you a fair hearing, but the RIAA won't. They will subpoena your hard drive and try to show that you have stuff that is pirated. You may be able to defend yourself on the basis of showing that you ripped stuff to your hard drive that matches your collection of CDs, that the creation date on your files matches your patterns of having ripped batches of your stuff. You may also be able to show that things are legal downloads by reference to your activity on, say, the iTunes Music Store. By then, however, you will have had to have hired a lawyer and probably burned tens of thousands in legal fees. And the judge may be a technical ninny with no understanding of your defense. This is why so many settle out of court with the RIAA, even if they didn't do anything wrong. This is also why the RIAA sucks.
I see a lot of statements here regarding what is legal and what is not. A lot of what has been categorically stated as legal or illegal is flatly wrong and based on GCEs. If you are interested in this as a matter of law, check this thread. It is exactly on point and it is the copyright blog of a lawyer who is formerly copyright counsel to the House of Representatives.
Axelfonze, I agree, but do I get a discount on the CD if I own the music already on LP ? I already purchased the right to listen once before....Should I then not be able to download the song legally without paying a minor fee for server administration.
The bottom line is th music industry is out to make money, at any cost (like many other entities too)...
While I agree that d/l mp3s wasn't the question presented, the takeaway is that the RIAA is *very* vigilant about enforcing its perceived rights, and if there was a way that they could go after people merely for storing their own ripped CDs, I suspect they certainly would try. While there is no simple existing means for determining what's on your hard drive, the subpoena game played by RIAA is hardball--look at their track record where people (including grandmothers without computers) are being forced to prove a negative after being sued. I'm not so sanguine about the ultimate "privacy" of my hard drive--there have already been attempts by legislators to require software monitoring compliance with copyright.
Besides, keeping the CD is sort of the ultimate backup.
Just think of it this way: You get contracted to develop a software database grading solution for high school teachers. You get an advance, and the software company covers all of your expenses, but all of the money you recieve and that is spent on the project will get recouped out of royalties, which is where you are actually going to make your money.
So you finish your program, and the company releases it. Come to find out teachers are buying a copy, then copying the disc and selling the used copy cheap to their friends. Not only is this cutting into your paycheck (which doesn't even come until the software company has recouped all of the money they spent on the project and paid to you), but it's also like people are stealing your hard work. They are selling the copy they bought, while still using the software. To make matters worse, the software company won't hire you again unless a certain number of copies are sold. And even if they do hire you again (or force you to write another program as per your contract), if they didn't make all of their money back from the first program (which would mean you didn't make ANYTHING on the backend), the rest of the money from the first project is recoupable from the royalties from the second project. So essentially (and this happens quite often) you busted your butt to write a great program, had people basically stealing it, and then wound up owing money to your employer.
When you buy a CD you are buying the music contained on it for your own personal use. The people that wrote the songs get a piece, the artist gets a piece, the producer gets a piece, the label gets a piece, and the store gets a piece. By keeping a copy of a disc that you sell you are not only stealing, but you're devaluing music. Does anyone wonder why the current dearth of good new artists coincided almost directly with the rise of downloading and technology that made it easy to copy CDs with little to no loss. Labels are losing money, and thus are unwilling to take risks on anything but the most derivative music that's sure to sell to masses of teenagers. CONSUMERS are responsible for where the music industry is. It's a business, and they will do what they have to to make money, including cutting risk.
What's the quickest way to a more varied pool of new, talented, UNIQUE artists? For everyone to go out and get their music legally.
Assuming you take care with a music server - dedicated machine, don't run other programs on it, plenty of disk space, etc. - you should easily be able to put all your music on the server, have a backup strategy that fully protects you, and be able to interact with your music more flexibly than ever before. I would suggest a lossless format, and I would store the music on dedicated external USB drives. Support for any part of that setup won't go away for a long time.
Keep or sell the CDs? There are possible legal issues, probable moral issues, and a loss of ultimate security of your collection if you sell. To me, though, this is a completely different question than whether everything should be on a server and accessed that way.
When you purchase a CD, you are purchasing the right to listen to the music. Fair use allows you to make a backup copy just in case the original becomes lost or damaged. Now, when you sell the original CD, you are selling your right to listen to the music. So, you no longer have the right to listen to the backup copy. Like many stated above, it's really hard to enforce this at the present time. However, if you anger the RIAA gods and they sue you, then you will have to prove that you own the rights to listen to all the CD's on your hard drive. Anybody that has been following the endless stream of RIAA suits will know that you are guilty until proven innocent.
FYI--
I have about 1700 of my favorite CD's ripped in lossless. I've had to rip them three times know. Original rip with DRM on, re-rip with DRM turned off so I could stream to SB2, and re-rip after hard drive failure. Make sure to backup your collection. In addition, consider using an E-sata external HD for backup; a lot faster than USB2.
You're really not going to get very much money for them and somewhere down the road you'll wonder why you sold them. Don't. I have and ended up buying stuff for a second time.
I did something like what you are suggesting, but I did keep most of my collection in case of failure. I burned to two separate hard drives and backed up additionally on DVD's. The latter is a bit of a PITA, but makes for added piece of mind. Yeah, like others have said, hard drives can, and do fail. Backup or perish. Media and storage space is relatively cheap when compared with the time and aggravation of the alternative. I sold off about 300 CD's that I rarely listen to and wouldn't miss that much if I lost them. I did a nickel in the state pen for selling the CD's. My advice to you is do your time, don't look anyone in the eye, don't bend over to pick up the soap in the showers, and definitely don't tell'em what you're in there for. Make something good up like jay walking or removing tags from the bottom of sewn furniture.
Why MP3? You could get a large hard drive (say 4-500GB) and put all your CDs on there in lossless format. Lossless gives you about 50% compression. Estimating 500MB your average CD, you should be able to put 1600-2000 CDs on a single hardrive.
In any case, keep the CD's around or purchase at least a second hard drive for backup. No way, I would be seeling mine.
Gretsch6120 ,Since you don't have time to listen,WHEN are you going to find time to burn 1500 cd's??Add 10 or 15 minutes time to EACH cd to record at proper levels and other adjustments etc.The cd's you now have play in your car where you listen the most.I have more than 1500 cd's and 1200 lps.None are for sale and on My system and MANY others mp3's don't sound as good as cd's or records.Not even close.Keep your CD's !!See Aball 's comments above,Nightmare.How much will it cost to replace even 1/2 of your collection when your hard drive goes down??MY .02.JD
I would suggest purchasing a music server that has a built in hard drive and access to the internet. It makes it easy to rip your cds to the hard drive and also furnishes the cover art. They will automatically classify your CDs and show the cover art. Keep the CDs as back up. I am taking this path and am please with the results using an escient E2-200. FYI - I use a 320kps compression and can bairly hear the differance between "real time" CDs and the compressed version.
Click here for a long boring discussion on the legality of it. After this discussion I came to a few conclusions based on the idea that what you are buying is not a physical item as much as the right to listen to the music when you want to. The disc has no real value, it is the music that the disc can produce that has value.
Most everyone agrees that
1. if you buy an original you can make a copy for yourself if you keep the original 2. you can sell the original if you don't keep a copy 3. buying an original and selling a copy is illegal.
If 3 is true as most agree, then how can buying the original, keeping a copy, and then selling the original be any different?
From the previous discussion it is clear that many view the record industry with disdain and can rationalize anything they do in light of this. I've been through this debate in the previous post and don't want to do so again, but it is interesting to see how widely varying the opinions are on this.
As to the original question, keep the CDs. They aren't very valuable, don't take up much room, it's probably illegal, and no matter how you copy them you are putting yourself at risk of losing the music when your storage media ultimately fails.
I really don't think I will miss them when / if I sell them, as long as I have a secure way of digitally storing them. External hard drives are an option.
Will you someday down the road be able to sit and listen again, and if you can will you regret your selling of your collection? It is already spent money and CD's will keep forever, why not hold onto them? As far as a question of not being able to keep music on file that you sold seems really silly...you payed for it, so what happens when you buy a used CD from a second hand music store, since you only payed a fraction of original cost does that mean you should only be able to rip a fraction of its content?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
