What to do with 1,200 CDs I don't need

I did some research and the fair market value according to H&R Block is closer to $5,000, which would only save me $1,200 or so in taxes. At $1 each I might have to keep exploring my options.

Thanks so far. I know some of you think I just posted this to get offers for them. I too get suspicious when I see posts like "I found an old amp labeled Marantz 9 in my grandfather's attic and I was wondering what it is worth," but since it will probably be a few months before I get them all ripped and I'll wait to get that done before I make a decision this post will be long forgotten.

Interesting takes on the legal and moral sides. I understand your position, but since I bought most of these second hand the artist never got anything out of me in the first place. Did I ever have a legal right to listen to them?

As for hard drive crashes and losing everything; I am still debating that one. Once backed up that drive will never be turned on again unless the main one crashes, and then it will be backed up when it is turned on. I know things happen but the odds of losing 2 in a row have to be pretty slim.

I stand corrected.

After doing some research, it appears that no matter how one wishes to rationalize their actions, it is clearly a violation of applicable law to possess a copy without also possessing the original, and might even be illegal to have a digital copy for personal use even if you do have the original. Even though the courts have ruled that a cassette copy of materials you own is fair use, there has never been a similar ruling concerning digital copies. The RIAA still contends that any digital copies (cdr or hard drive) for any reason are illegal, but so far they have only prosecuted individuals sharing files, and not those copying for personal use.

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. For those of you who sent emails I was serious that this is not an ad to sell or give them away. That is why you were ignored.

I admit the bottom line is money. If the $2 to $5 estimate is valid that would be almost $4,000 at the low end of around $3 each. I’m not starving here but that is a good chunk of change.

The issue is not space. As you can see from my system pictures I have shelves to hold them and I was wondering what to put there if the CDs are gone.

I am not concerned about theft or lightning, the archive hard drives will be sitting on a shelf and they could steal the CDs too which have more value than a hard drive.

The concerns about artwork and portability are valid but that may be a compromise that has to be made. I download and attach a copy of the cover with each rip, and I can always look up the info at http://www.allmusic.com/ (great site) but I will miss the liner notes.

Zaikesman’s points about the artist being denied compensation no matter what I do are logical, but still might not justify it legally. Oh well, I've got some time to think about it.

So we have an opinion from a non-lawyer saying what I want to do IS legal contradicting the rest of us non-lawyers who think it isn't.

Anybody got any ideas that can settle this? Onhwy66 could go sell one, notify the RIAA, and see if they file a lawsuit :>)

Highway 61, Your analogy doesn't hold up. You can't sell a car AND continue to drive it. You can sell a cd AND continue to listen to it via a copy. You better believe if you bought a Ford and then started to sell copies of it that they would squash you like a bug.

Nobody is down on re-selling, they are down on reselling and continuing to use what they sold.

You are confused, just as I was because you equate the value of a cd as being contained in the physical object. It is not. It is the data that the disc holds that has the value. When the CD was purchased the artist wasn't compensated for the disc that held the music, they were compensated for one copy of their music. What you buy is not a disc, it is the right to use what is on that disc. When you sell the disc you are giving up your right to use it.

The artist was compensated for a copy. Every time a new copy is sold they should receive a cut of it no matter where that copy came from just like every time it is played on the radio they get paid.

If you make a copy and sell that copy it is illegal. If you make a copy, keep the copy and sell the original it is illegal. In both cases you have taken a legally purchased single copy and turned it into 2 copies.

Do you think it is fair use to use pirated copies of computer software? I bet not if you were in the business of selling software.

How about hooking up to your neighbors cable TV so you don't have to pay? Doesn't cost the cable company anymore to feed to 2 houses instead of one. Ask the cable company and the courts how they feel about that issue.

If you can honestly answer the following question with a yes then you can continue to pirate software with a clear conscience.... If you made your living as a musician and received your income from the sale of your music, would you agree that it is fair for someone to possess a copy of it without having paid for it?

You are right. There is a difference in that you don't have the packaging, but I don't think that has anything to do whether it is legal or not. I also don't see the loss in fidelity. If you make a bit for bit copy how could you lose fidelity? On the other hand, I followed a raging debate here recently about how much better CDs sounded than the original when copied on some magic box so I really don't want to go there.

So what am I going to do? I continue to rip them to my hard drive and have about 450 done, but the argument that they could be lost forever with a hardware failure has me leaning towards keeping them.

Yes, I agree, at some point the insanity of the legal system makes it impossible to pre-determine what the courts will decide. However, I would equate the buy/rip/sell as being the equivalent of the illegal copying of the circuitry rather than reverse engineering. I suppose it could go the other way.

I simply can't believe your prostitution analogy. If that was true every escort service and prostitute in the country would declare themselves as providing adult film services and effectively legalize prostitution nationwide.

I'm still confident that you would lose a case involving buy/rip/sell but realize until that case is tried in the courts our discussion is probably just a waste of bandwidth.

As the owner of an album I have the legal right to make copies of that album for my own use. The artist and others are not compensated for each additional copy I make.

Yes you do have that right but you have misinterpreted what I said. I never said YOU couldn't use it, I said you couldn't use it at the same time others are using it. You are grasping at straws. You can make as many copies as you want for your personal use. It is obvious that no matter how many copies you make, you can only listen to one at a time. So even if you have one in your car and one at home and one at the office and one on your ipod for air travel you are only using one copy.

It is when one person pays and multiple people benefit that it becomes illegal.

It is only illegal if I try to distribute the copies.

Exactly, and thanks for making my point. There is absolutely no difference whether you keep the original and distribute the copy or keep the copy and distribute the original. You have taken one legal copy and turned it into 2, one legal and one not.

If I made a copy of that software prior to selling the original, it is not illegal to still use that copy.

That is ridiculous, of course it is illegal. Read the license agreement. If what you say is true then Microsoft would sell one copy of windows and everybody would just pass it around.

This doesn't mean the use of the legally made copy is illegal, only that the software maker doesn't want you to do it.

That is so blatantly wrong I don't know where to begin. There is absolutely no circumstance where it is legal to use one copy of a software program on 2 computers unless it is written in to the license agreement, and the vast majority of software is licensed for use on a single computer. Even the phrase "legally made copy" is silly. Ask Microsoft how many legal copies you can make of Windows. I bet the answer is zero and it has nothing to do with how diligent they are to build in copy protection.

This is clearly a case of what you think the law should be rather than what it is. You have every right to disagree with the law, but what you describe has been tried in the courts and no matter what you think it should be, it is illegal.

There is term for the type of argument you are using but it escapes me. You are focusing on minutia (what happens if I lose the CD?) in an attempt to refute the general concept.

The applicable laws are laws pertaining to copyrights. Can I cite a specific line in some statute prohibiting the exact thing you propose? No, but that does not settle whether it is legal. Since every possible situation can’t be covered by laws, at some point the courts have to apply the principle of “what would a reasonable man do?’ There is no black and white definition for fair use. You can come up with all sort of convoluted scenarios that can only be decided in court. That’s why they exist.

For me the simple test is what would you consider fair if you were on the other side of the fence? I find it hard to believe you could support your position if you made your living from your music. If you can then we will just have to agree to disagree until somebody comes up with a court ruling that decides for us.

Highway 61, you wore me out yesterday with your dust storm of what-if scenarios but I will try one more time to convince you that buying a CD, making and retaining a copy for your personal use, and then selling the original is illegal. Forget about whether or not you lose it or how many people are in your family.

My whole position depends entirely on the fact that it is illegal to sell copies. If you feel that it is legal to buy and sell copies then don't bother to read any further.

Scenario 1: You buy a new CD for $15, make a copy to keep for your use, and sell the original to your friend for $10.

Scenario 2: Your friend buys a new CD for $15, sells you a copy to use for $5, and he keeps the original. This is clearly illegal if you agree that selling copies is illegal.

The end result is exactly the same. In both cases your friend has the original and is out $10 while you have a copy and are out $5. How can one be legal and the other not if the end result is exactly the same?

It doesn't matter if you murder your wife or you pay somebody to murder your wife, if you get caught you are going to fry.

Zaikesman, the issue is not whether the industry is going to come after you or what their larger concerns are. I agree that their real fear is mass distribution of free copies via the internet, but that doesn’t make a single free copy legal.

Onhwy61, I didn't say your story about the family was off base, it simply has nothing to do with the question at hand.

There is no way if you think about it logically that you can separate the 2 scenarios. There are numerous ways to end up at essentially the same point and none of them can be justified.

Along with my original 2 scenarios you have (among infinite others):

……..You and your friend want to save some money so on an ongoing basis you both contribute 1/2 toward the price of CDs, one time you keep the original and he gets a copy and then vice versa the next time around. Why not photocopy the album art so you have the liner notes.

……..Every time you buy a CD you make a copy for your friend and vice versa.

……..How about you form a consortium of 50 people who all contribute 30 cents and all get a copy and then you sell the original and split the proceeds.

The bottom line is exactly the same in each case. The artist is compensated for a single copy while multiple consumers benefit from his work. I’m sorry you fail to see the connection. I’m sure the artist who got screwed out of his royalties does.

OK, you challenged me earlier to cite specific laws to support my position. Now you state:

A family unit can purchase an album and legally make multiple copies for their own use under the fair use copyright exception.

Please supply specific laws that support your position.

You can't. It all boils down to common sense.

The artist get's screwed. If you feel comfortable with that then there is nothing I can do to change your mind,

So you really don't think a household can make multiple copies?

I didn't say that. I simply asked you to reference a law that specifically allowed it just as you challenged me previously.

I don't want to screw the artist, but I certainly don't want to get screwed by them either.

That is comical. How can you possibly believe that not being allowed to make multiple copies of their copyrighted work is somehow screwing you??

I give up. You clearly have no concept of what is fair when it comes to intellectual property.

Zaikeman, the courts have ruled that it is legal to tape off the air for your own use. However, you don't have any right to distribute that copy just as you don't have any right to distribute digital files via the internet, the "new radio."

The good news is, using Highway 61's logic, I figured out a way to sell legal copies. Let's say your business model is you want to profit by $3 for each copy minus the cost of the blank disc.

Open a used cd store. Include a blank cdr along with each used cd you sell . Once you sell it, as a courtesy, make a copy of his cd for him. Then buy back the cd for $7 and let him keep his copy.

oops, I hit the submit button too fast.

I also still don't see any logical or legal reasoning behind the argument that because each is legal on it's own that together they must be legal. You argue that since copying for your own use is legal, and selling a CD is legal, that copying and then selling must be legal.

That line of reasoning just does not hold up. The conclusion that buying/ripping/copying is legal may be valid, but not simply based on those facts. Any position can be justified using false logic.

Dogs are human. Why? Humans are animals and dogs are animals therefore dogs are humans. That's just plain silly.

Would you argue since it is legal to drink and it is also legal to drive that it is therefore legal to drink while driving?

My position that buying/ripping/selling is the same as buying a ripped copy is logical since the result is exactly the same.

Saying they are not because the path to get there differs is not logical.

No, it wasn't a troll. That is what I intended to do until it was clearly pointed out that my intentions were certainly immoral and probably illegal. I agree that the RIAA is out of control but that doesn’t mean that everything they stand for is wrong.

In the U.S.A. something is presumed legal unless specifically defined as illegal.

Not that it has anything to do with this debate but I’m not so sure about that. There is no way to specifically define every illegal act as being so. Unprecedented situations arise everyday and the courts routinely take laws and precedents to determine what is and is not legal.

Using your logic, since there is no specific law banning my store idea, and you believe each act in and of itself is legal; wouldn’t you have to agree that the whole operation is legal?

If it is legal, as you suggest to buy it, take it home, rip a copy to keep, and sell it; it surely would be legal if you took your laptop to the store with you to make the copy instead of going home to do it. Why would it become illegal just because someone else actually made the copy? Does selling it right back without waiting some period of time make it illegal? Do you have to sell it to somebody other than the person who sold it to you?

One local re-seller here has a policy that you can return a CD or record within a few days for any reason and they will buy it back at ½ what you paid. If I take my laptop down there and stay all day making copies as I buy them and sell them right back is a law being broken? I think there is.

I completely agree that the store idea is intended to circumvent the law, but you can’t have it both ways. If my store is illegal then buying/ripping/selling and retaining the copy has to be illegal no matter how it is accomplished.

Your honor, I rest my case.

Along the same lines, I was in Japan recently and noticed there are a lot of pachinko parlors. It’s a gambling machine that is kind of a cross between a slot machine and a pinball machine. They were always very busy and I wondered why these people would put money into them for hours on end if gambling on them was illegal. Turns out that it is illegal for them to pay out money but you can win a prize like a doll or a pack of cigarettes. After they awarded your prize the parlor would then buy it back for the amount of money you would have won. I suppose that the whole enterprise wouldn’t stand up in court but nobody has bothered to prosecute it.

As I go through ripping my collection I realize the last 2 posts are correct. I can't recall the last time I listened to many CDs, if ever, so I skipped over them. This is especially true with some box sets.

Q. How many times can you sit down and listen to the 20 CD set Miles Davis "Live at Montreux?"

A. zero

Some will have to go.