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

My own belief is that the issue of massive, free digital distribution and copying is unsolvable according to the traditional models. I think artists will have to move to an "honor system" of online donations -- tips, really, like busking all over again -- for the music of theirs that people enjoy after taking it for free off the net. This implies that artists should just go ahead and provide said music for free (or nominally low cost) over the net, with the full expectation that it will propagate in the way that is now widely considered to be a problem (and illegal). The first "difficulty" with this is that it would largely cut out the labels (cry me a river). I don't know what artists actually get paid these days per album sold -- a couple of bucks? Simply go online and give an artist whose songs you've downloaded an album's worth of $2 directly. When the legacy need for physical media and packaging finally fades away (except for a niche enthusiast market), overhead will be much lower -- basically just creating and maintaining a website, while ever more of today's popular music seems to be made in low cost "project studios" anyway. Let videos die -- MTV doesn't show them anymore, and they were never good for the music, just an expense which gave the labels more control. A new model of "record labels" will probably thrive in this environment, ones which operate primarily through their websites and function much more like the numerous independents of yore than the humongous conglomerates of today, being portals catering to defined tastes and genres. There may be considerably less concentrated money in this model, but it will be less dysfunctional from both the artistic and business standpoints. The "major labels" can revert to just doing a similar business with their back catalogs and quit trying to shove their present day mass-produced crap down our collective throats, they'll be much less top-heavy for the change. Government action may help facilitate the transition, by breaking up monopolies both among the major labels and also in radio station ownership, but if that never happens, tech and market forces (read: the internet, wireless and satellite, and the existence of better options content-wise) will eventually accomplish it for us.

ELIZABETH IS A STOOGE FOR THE RIAA. Unbelievable, but I personally believe it to be true. I have only one question - how much do they pay you to tout your "personal" opinions? Opinions so outrageous and at odds with existing laws that the RIAA could point to your posts and use them as examples of why they need the draconian anti-consumer laws they wish to enact. What fair minded legislator wouldn't want to stop someone who publicly brags about their part in illegal activity? Your actions and your working for the RIAA are the most cynical actions I have ever witness here on Audiogon. Frankly, I am shocked!

Elizabeth, this is Gillian Welch's response to your way of thinking:

Everything is free now,
That's what they say.
Everything I ever loved,
I'm going to give it away.
Someone hit the big score.
They figured it out,
That we're gonna do it anyway,
Even if doesn't pay.

I can get a tip jar,
Gas up the car,
And try to make a little change
Down at the bar.

Or I can get a straight job,
I've done it before.
I never minded working hard,
It's who I'm working for.

(Chorus)

Every day I wake up,
Come in a song.
But I don't need to run around,
I just stay home.

And sing a little love song,
My love, to myself.
If there's something that you want to hear,
You can sing it yourself.

'Cause everything is free now,
That what I say.
No one's got to listen to
The words in my head.
Someone hit the big score,
And I figured it out,
That we're gonna do it anyway,
Even if doesn't pay.

The RIAA may not be the consumer's friend, but ultimately the artist has to be paid. Otherwise, to paraphrase Gillian, we can sing to ourselves.

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.

Ck out Jaybo's 4-21 comment, "What you collect is who you are".
Man talk about the best one liner in music. Revelation for sure. I'm in the process of trying to get exactly this point , over to understanding among my gramophone friends in classical music. I've said exactly this in so many ways, many topics. I get some welcome responses, but then others are either confused as to my limitations, or I draw a few disgruntlements. No sinde remarks , these guys are real gentlemem as to accept varying points of view. But over at Good Music Guide, these guys will have no such thing as "what you collect defines who you are". they'll thorw all insults, vexation, and snide remarks. Which is why I was recently banned from the site for such views.
I just made a comment over at gramophone today on my topic, "which 2 composers you hope never to hear another note from ever again in your life?"...A new thought occured today and I posted, "not only did I find it necessary to dump more than 50% of my classical cds, due to poor performances, but lately I've looked over my collection to see which composers need to go"
Though its only a few, still some had to go.
Our music should reflect who we are.
Mine does, and i feel good about my collection.
I have like 25 composers represented. Some guys are saying they have like 300+ and looking to add more. We are all different.

Paul
Baton Rouge

I was in a similar boat as you a couple years back. I had a couple hundred CD’s I accumulated over the years. Some were bought out of fad, some because I had to have the whole set, and others were bought for 1 or 2 popular songs I heard on the radio. I cut my collection down to about ¼ of what it was and purchased new and superior recordings that better suit my personality and newfound pickiness. There are a lot of bad artists out there and I am much more choosy in who I support. I will not buy a CD if it only has 2 or 3 good songs.

I take this minimalist approach a step farther with my purchases. The ONLY CD’s I buy are Classical or are albums by my favorite artists, which usually result’s in their full studio recordings. I believe an individuals music collection is a ‘strong’ reflection of themselves – why gunk it up? Sell what you don’t listen to…if there is a song or two on a particular album that you haven’t picked up in 5 years but could ‘possibly’ see yourself listening to in the future…put it on a Hard Drive, back it up, and enjoy.

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.

Herman, the law is sometimes bizarre and yes, you can have it both ways. In some instances how you get there is legally more important than the result. An example, if I reverse engineer a computer chip's functionality, it's legal. If I copy the actual circuitry of a chip, it's illegal. It's the same result either way, but one is legal and the other is not. Another example, I run an agency where I send out women to engage in sexual activity with men. In all states where prostitution is illegal this agency is prohibited, unless of course the agency is a booking service for adult film actresses, in which case it's a legal activity. Again, same result, women paid to have sex, one legal and the other not legal. This purchase/copy/sell original issue could be another example of this peculiar legal phenomena.

My apologies for accusing you of trolling.

Onhwy61: Based on my experience with him on Audiogon over the years, IMO Herman wouldn't post a troll anymore than you or I would. Oftentimes discussing and writing about stuff also serves as a way to think it through for yourself -- at least that's what I've found.

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.

Herman, your used record store idea is a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent the law. I think you would lose if prosecuted/sued.

We don't have to agree, but I will note that I find it interesting that as the starter of this thread you are now able to so fervently answer your own question. I can only wonder if the original post was a troll in order to afford you a platform to state anti-consumer/pro business positions. If so, you have succeeded. What you've failed to do is to demonstrate the illegality of buying/ripping/selling, IMO. In the U.S.A. something is presumed legal unless specifically defined as illegal. I'm beginning to realize that for some people that's a hard concept to understand.

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.

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.

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

My understanding of the current law is that I am allowed to make multiple copies of purchased copyrighted material for my own use. If this right is taken away from me via new legislation, then I've been screwed.

I notice that you original argument was against the right to resell the originally purchased album. You've seemed to have shifted to declaring that simply making multiple copies for personal use should also be stopped. Will your next argument creep to prohibiting any copies? The reason I ask this question is because that also appears to be the pattern of the RIAA.

Finally, I'm not talking about what is fair, I'm talking about what is legal.

If you carry the conservative argument to its logical limit, we should not be able to gain the benefit of enjoyment of any copyrighted music without paying for it directly or indirectly. Are the kids in the park break-dancing to a boombox and encircled by a crowd of enjoying onlookers while passing the hat illegally charging for a public performance without compensating the artist? You could make that argument. And what about taping off the radio, something that was pretty common in days of yore (and some of us still do on occassion)? Is not the internet just the new radio?

I think one of the problems with the strict constructionist view is that it is historically, prehistorically, and perhaps even genetically disconnected from the ways which people traditionally invent, perform, propagate, receive and employ music. Music is tens of thousands of years old and universal, while copyright law and recorded sound are fairly new developments and culture-specific. Prior to the last few hundred years, all music was "folk" music, and until very recently most music still was. Perhaps our natural heritage as human beings is part of the reason we might find it understandably difficult not to consider the music we love to be "ours" in some deeper way, no matter who wrote it or how much we respect the concept of intellectual property rights in the abstract. That might sound like a rationalization, but I think it correlates strongly with reality. I do believe that once an artist puts a work out into the world, it ceases to be theirs in many ways -- especially if it is successful -- and that this is an integral part of both the bargain and the attraction which comes with being recognized for one's work.

An interesting topic - there was an excellent article in Stereophile (I believe) a while back talking about copyright law and how it applied to music. My recollection was that the laws allow for a lot less than most of us think they do, but I don't remember the specifics. I'll have to dig through my old issues to see if I can find the article.

It's an interesting topic because there are several scales to evaluate it on - legality, fairness, common sense, etc. I'll admit that I would have just assumed that it was illegal to buy a CD, make a copy, and then sell the original, but I certainly don't know that it is based on my reading of the laws.

It's interesting to me that it is mentioned several times in this thread that the RIAA isn't worried about the single copy given to a friend, that they're focused on stopping the mass duplication. One scan of the ebay CD listings shows any number of people who openly are selling 1-1000 CDs because they have "ripped all the CDs to my computer and don't need the CDs anymore". I'm sure enforcement costs $$$, but if somebody is worried about this practice, they could certainly mount enough of a charge to scare people into at least not admitting in writing of what they're doing.

On the fairness scale, I'm not sure it's all that clear. At what point is one depriving the label and/or artist money? Is having a copy of a CD for which you don't own the original the equivalent of having stolen goods? If there was flat out zero chance you were ever going to pay a penny for a CD, have you deprived anybody of revenue by having the copy?

It seems like the scale is infinitely granular and everbody decides for themselves where right stops and wrong begins. Personally, I have a couple thousand CDs and I have never downloaded a song, legally or otherwise, off the internet. But I can certainly see lots of scenarios where people would and it wouldn't deprive anybody of a penny of revenue, because it wasn't ever going to be spent anyway. That doesn't necessarily make it legal or fair.

Regardless of what is legal or fair, I think the constant implication that the complete underpinnings of recorded music's woes is illegal copying is insulting. Has there ever been a bigger tidal wave to a major industry that was so unprepared for, and so poorly responded to as digital music and advances in technology? Clinging to the notion that you can charge $12.99 for a copy of Heart's Greatest Hits in 2006 and that you're going to be able to legislate your way to enforcing it, while wondering why sales are down is plain comical.

Hey, at least people have stopped posting inviting you to please send them your orphaned CDs ;^)

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.

So you really don't think a household can make multiple copies? Okay, can a household make a single copy? Read the commentary on Sony vs. Univversal (1984).

I don't want to screw the artist, but I certainly don't want to get screwed by them either. Afterall, I did pay for the album.

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,

Herman, I see the connection, it's just that one case is clearly prohibited by law and the other is not. That's the way the laws are written and interpreted. If you want the law changed to make both scenarios illegal, then contact your legislators.

My family scenario has everything to do with the point at hand. A family unit can purchase an album and legally make multiple copies for their own use under the fair use copyright exception. You seemingly want to argue that if the original purchased album should became lost, gifted, destroyed, or even sold, all legally equivalent acts, that the previously legal copies instantaneously become illegal. Or maybe I've misunderstood you and you think the family cannot even make copies under the fair use exception?

You seem entirely focused on what is best for the copyright holders. Purchasers of copyrighted material also have rights.

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.

Whether that right (to buy, copy, sell the original and retain the copy) exists or not, or whether it's even been addressed or determined in the law, there is still a fundamental practical difference between the two scenarios (selling the copy or selling the original) in the real world: you can only sell an original once, but you can make and sell an unlimited number of copies. The one copy/one original analogy might hold, but the industry has never been demonstrably concerned about only one, physical copy, or even a few, given to friends or family (which might ultimately help the artist more than hurt). It's the potentially unlimited number of copies presented by digital technology, available from strangers without needing to leave the house or acquire a physical object, that's made them take action. This doesn't necessarily settle the ethical or legal questions, but it is a fact.

Herman, it is clearly illegal to make a copy of copyrighted material and then to sell that copy. There is no dispute whatsoever about that issue. Making a copy and selling the original is open to debate. On the surface both scenarios may have the same end result, but legally they are quite distinct. The principle of first sale permits a buyer of copyrighted material to resell a legally purchased copy (the original). The fair use clause allows someone to legally make a copy of copyrighted material they have legally purchased. Both are well established legal doctrines. Add them together and I believe a consumer has the right to purchase, copy and resell (the original).

My example about my family is not off-base. It's a very real example of how music is used within a household. It's driving the RIAA nuts.

Yes Herman, but at least she'll be dead before you ;^)

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.

There's a new DMCA Bill coming up for vote soon. This one makes even talking about circumventing copy protection a crime. In addition, the language is so overly broad, that it actually makes any device that can be used to circumvent copy protection illegal. So, I guess that it would make personal computers illegal. You have to love it when the RIAA and the music labels write laws.

"The RIAA is not a consumer advocate group."

Amen to that. Frankly, kind of makes me queasy to even state their arguments, even if I do so with attribution. Just read another thread where they are suing a family for illegally downloading material, and the family doesn't even have a computer. The fact that the family just moved into the house in question doesn't seem to enter into the RIAA's analysis.

I'm a huge advocate of extensive fair use rights and think DRM is anti-consumer. Don't even get me started on video technology... Here I'll put in a plug for EFF--the Electronic Frontier Foundation--at http://www.eff.org.

Edesilva, very nice analysis. I fully recognize that this issue is not fully legally decided and I would imagine that future court cases will only partly clarify the morass.

The RIAA is not a consumer advocate group. They would love to have CDs granted the protections that computer software makers are currently provided. I believe I am in a majority position in arguing that new legislation would have to be enacted to bring them there. Such new legislation would be an erosion of privileges currently enjoyed by consumers.

Yes, it's getting harder and harder to find "audiophile" and tech savy friends.

BTW - the guy who thought that hard drives are like records is a custom installer of audio/video. Scary, isn't it?

Prpixel: Quite a group of friends there ;^)

Herman:

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.

The truth is I know several people who make (or try to make) their primary living from music, receive checks from BMI/ASCAP, and do exactly the kinds of things most people do when it comes to copying and circulating copyrighted recorded music on a limited basis (I don't know, however, what their file-sharing stances or habits are). And as I've said repeatedly, I don't think this question represents a zero-sum game, or that practices like this might not help, rather than harm, artists in the big picture. But I agree with your decision to keep your disks. (As for the sonic aspect, the only hard-disk-based device that's been hooked-up to my system, an Alesis MasterLink recorder/burner, does not sound quite as good feeding my DAC from its hard-drive as the same material sounds played from the CD via my Theta transport. And all CD-R's burned on several devices and brands of blanks have never sounded as good as the originals.)

One of the core problems here is that the term "fair use" is not black and white:

(i) The RIAA interprets fair use *not* to include any of the activities you have discussed, Onhwy61.

(ii) On the other hand, legal scholars seem to interpret most, or all, of the activities you mentioned as fair use.

The theft/loss thing is a red herring. I cannot fathom a judge that would say subsequent loss or theft of a CD that has been copied to render an otherwise legitimate copy not to constitute fair use.

The gray area here is copying with the intent of continuing to listen to the copy, and then reselling the original. It is the essence of infringement to copy an *original* and sell the *copy*. The difficulty in a digital age is that it is quite possible to make a copy that is an exact duplicate of the original (album art is a red herring too--that can be copied as well), so the practical distinction between the original and copy is nonexistent. Is there a legal distinction between the original and the copy? Yes, the first sale provisions of the copyright act make that clear. Should there be a distinction in an era where exact duplicates can exist? Probably not in my mind.

If you read the legal debate, the problem is that legal scholars seem to be flummoxed by the notion that a subsequent act could render a prior act not fair use--the typical interpretation of the law is that the act of copying is either fair use or it is not. What you do later should not change that analysis because its the act of copying itself that is legal or illegal.

However, the legal debate also ends up being very fact dependent. I can easily construct a case where a judge would--in all likelihood--find an instance of copying and reselling not be be fair use. If I buy a bunch of CDs, copy them, and resell the originals and there is a clear, documented intent on my part to buy them with the intent of copying them and reselling them, I would bet a judge would find that my acts of copying are not fair use. I can also construct a scenario that goes the other way--if I buy a bunch of CDs, copy them, and 10 years later give a couple away, I doubt very seriously that any judge would determine that my copies are not fair use.

Just because the actual terms of the copyright act haven't caught up with the digital age, however, does not mean that what you are doing is *right*. What is right and what is legal are entirely distinct. If there is no practical distinction between an act that is infringement (copying an original and selling the copy) and an act that may or may not be infringement (copying the original and selling the original), and we agree that infringement is bad, then it seems to me that the law misses but morality shouldn't.

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.

Herman, I asked you to cite the law that prohibited buying/ripping/selling and you have not done so. Your refusal to do so undermines all your other arguments.

My understanding of fair use does not place specific limits on the number of copies or the number of people who can simultaneously listen to a single legally purchased album. As an example -- as the head of a household of four I purchase a CD. I then rip the CD to my computer hard drive which is connected to my main hifi system. I also transfer the album to my iPod which I take to the office. My wife then copies the album to her iPod which she uses in the summer house. My high school sophomore daughter makes a CD-R of several songs from the album for her car. My son then takes the original CD and goes off to college. One album, 5 copies and not a single law broken. That's my understanding of fair use. Now if my son misplaces the original, gives it away, throws it out, etc. am I really to believe that suddenly all the copies that were to that point legal, suddenly become illegal. Now that's what physicists would call spooky action at a distance.

You also seem to be confusing the terms of a license agreement and breaking the law. There is specific legal statues that prohibit the hacking of software security measures. At the same time, many software products do not contain security features. If I copy a non-security laden software program I might be in violation of the license agreement that governs that software, but I have not violated the anti-hacking law. There's a big difference.

Personally, I would seriously recommend that you keep the originals. Not for any legal/moral/spiritual reasons, but technology is such that you just never know when you'll need the original. It's real cheap insurance.

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.

There is absolutely no difference whether you keep the original and distribute the copy or keep the copy and distribute the original

Well, there is a difference with music CDs, especially for collectors and audiophiles. If you keep only the copy and sell or give away the original, you'll lose the original disk, original inserts, and also some sonic fidelity. That these things seem to be rapidly becoming relics of an age past probably will only make them more valuable at some point in the future. And it's not at all clear to me that the law, even if it is "outdated" in some respects, does not make or imply this same distinction, probably for those same reasons. Personally, I doubt that if I ever rip all my CD's I'll want to get rid of the originals.

Anyway Herman, so what do you think you're going to do at this point?

Herman,

I think it's time to throw in the towel. He's already made up is mind as to what he thinks is legal.
------------
I poled a dozen friends today and 11 off them thought that it was legal to make copies of CD's and give them to friends. They thought that it was illegal to sell copies, but perfectly legal to give them away as gifts. In addition, 8 of them thought that "ripping" is done in the analog domain. One guy thought that after you make two digital copies, the original CD would stop working. He also thought that a hard drive records data in the analog domain like a record cutting lathe. LOL.

I think the RIAA needs to spend more time and money on educating the public instead of sueing people. BTW, I'm not a big fan of the RIAA, but I think it's important to support the artists.

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.

When you sell the disc you are giving up your right to use it.

Herman, show me the specific article of federal law that says that. Also, does my "license" to use the legally made copy expire in the event of theft or causualty?

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.

This is in direct opposition to the fair use clause. 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. It is only illegal if I try to distribute the copies. Radio stations typically make multiple copies of albums in various formats and the artist is compensated not for the copies, but for the number of times a song is played. This clearly doesn't apply to consumers.

Your comparison to pirated software is misleading. It is illegal to sell copies of software, but it is not illegal to resell the original software that I legally purchased. If I made a copy of that software prior to selling the original, it is not illegal to still use that copy. The software makers have numerous legal means to prevent this situation, if they so desire. Dongles, insertion of the original password coded disk, etc. Some do and some don't use these methods. It's there choice. 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.

If the RIAA or some other group wants to go to Congress and pass legislation that specifically addresses this issue, then more power to them. I just bet they'll try to hide in somewhere deep within some other bill and try to get it passed in the middle of the night. That's what people do when they try to take away property rights from legitimate purchasers.

BTW, because of bandwith and traffic issues it does costs the cable company and its users something everytime a new user climbs aboard.

You keep saying "they got the money for the CD I bought," and think that justifies your actions

Never said that.

neither the record company nor the artist got the money from the sale they didn't make--the sale that they should have made but for the fact that you pre-empted them by selling yours

I specifically acknowledged this (putting aside caveats about whether new vs. used sales is really a zero-sum game), but noted that is perfectly legal and expected, and always has been.

This is not an indictment of resale--selling it without keeping a copy. There you aren't depriving them of a sale...

Yes you are (potentially -- same caveat as above).

...because you are not a consumer who is willing to pay for what you got

The only way you don't pay is if you buy it used and sell it used for the same amount. That's legal, but doesn't compensate the artist whether you keep a copy or not.

The other recurring thing I see in this thread is people's view that "heck, I'm just one person, this isn't my problem, my contribution to the situation is negligible."

Again, it's legal as long as you're not file-sharing or otherwise giving away or selling copies. And again, I don't think it's so simple -- wider dissemination, even uncompensated, can help the artist, not just hurt them. It's not that "I'm just one person" which is relevent -- it's that I'm not making more than one or a few copies, rather than thousands. There is a difference, and the former has always gone on, and may benefit artists in the final analysis.

Zaikesman-

For a more complete discussion of the state of the law, look at the link I previously referenced. Your copy is "legal" because the making of that copy is generally regarded as fair use. The first sale provisions protect your right to sell the original, but I don't think anyone would claim that the copyright act is really abreast of the times. The "gray area" here is whether keeping a copy made under fair use and then selling the original is legal or not and, independent of that, whether or not it is morally right or wrong.

I'm not in a position to tell you it is legal or not. My personal view is that if you got hauled up in front of a court, the court would find some way of deciding that repeatedly copying and reselling different CDs probably violates fair use. Making a copy for personal use and then 10 years later giving away the CD--probably fair use.

And, I would submit that the RIAA probably *is* concerned with this. They have gone after people for all sorts of reasons, and if they found a bunch of digital copies of music on your computer, you better bet you would end up in court. Remember, the RIAA takes the position that even ripping for use on an iPod--whether you keep the CD or not--is illegal. It is all kind of irrelevant whether you would win in the end anyway. Given the vagaries of the law and the well-heeled nature of RIAA, you would probably go bankrupt defending yourself. My recollection is that they generally estimate about $250K to take a case to the Court of Appeals with decent counsel.

Putting aside the legal question, I happen to think it is wrong. You keep saying "they got the money for the CD I bought," and think that justifies your actions. But, neither the record company nor the artist got the money from the sale they didn't make--the sale that they should have made but for the fact that you pre-empted them by selling yours. This is not an indictment of resale--selling it without keeping a copy. There you aren't depriving them of a sale, because you are not a consumer who is willing to pay for what you got. In the case where you are keeping the copy, the inference is that you like it and will continue to listen to it, so you are among those who should pay to hear it.

The other recurring thing I see in this thread is people's view that "heck, I'm just one person, this isn't my problem, my contribution to the situation is negligible." That, in my mind, isn't an answer to the moral question of whether it is right or not. It may be the way you rationalize doing something that is wrong, but it doesn't make it right.

FWIW, the copyright law article that appeared in the Sept. '05 Stereophile says this about fair use under the Audio Home Recording Act of '92:

"Title 17's 'First Sale' provision is intended to limit the copyright holder's control over the disposition of the protected work to the first sale. That is, once one buys a painting, a book, a CD, or another protected work, the purchaser gains the right to sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of the work. If the work is sold to another, that individual then gains the right to dispose of the work, and so on.

"There are some important caveats to the First Sale provision. First, it does not apply to a copy the purchaser makes. For example, if one purchases a CD and then makes a copy (or copies), as permitted by the AHRA, one cannot give away or sell the copies. Second, there need not be any money exchanged for a copyright to be infringed. For example, if one were to copy a book in its entirety and give the copy to a friend as a gift, one would most likely have committed an act of infringement. Ditto for a CD. In other words, if you have ever burned a CD for friend, you have broken the law. While the recording studios [sic -- author probably meant record labels] are not thrilled by this practice, they have tended to turn a blind eye to it. But now it's time to turn to the heart of the matter.

What keeps the record labels up at night is the downloading and sharing of MP3 files...it is an act of copyright infringement to share copyright-protected music over a peer-to-peer network without the copyright holder's permission."

As you can see, the question of whether the owner of a copyright-protected work can sell the work but retain copies they've made is not directly addressed. Whether this is the fault of the article, or the law, I don't know. (The article also notes that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act prohibits bypassing copy-protection in order to make copies, but that this is a separate violation and not copyright infringement per se.) If this is a complete representation of the law on the matter, then it seems to me you'd have to make the argument that selling the work while retaining a copy amounts to illegally "giving" or "selling" the copy to yourself for it qualify as a violation, a bit of a logical contortion but then what are lawyers for?

I think the main point though is that whatever the law says or appears to say, or doesn't say, law enforcement and copyright holders clearly have never been concerned with situations like Herman's. P2P file-sharing is the issue.

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?

What is the claimed injury by the RIAA if I purchased an album, rip it to my hard drive and then resell the original album? The artist, record company, distributor and retailer have all been duly compensated by my original purchase. If the claim is my single sale on the used album market somehow depresses new album sales, then isn't that the same thing as Ford arguing that used car sales depress new car sales. In both cases they are correct, but the used market in both industries is still legal. It's interesting that on a site the specializes in used audio equipment that people are so down on people reselling items.

You CAN photocopy library books. That's why all libraries have copy machines.

"Do the moral worriers here also disapprove of libraries?"

No. But you are not permitted to photocopy library books, nor to borrow CDs and tapes and duplicate them. You may borrow them, then give them back, but not retain a copy as Herman is proposing to do.

The statement I agree with most since my last post was made by Meisterkleef:

"If there were no such thing as file sharing, I doubt this issue would even be on the radar screen."

I'm kinda surprised by the number of people who are so sincerely concerned about this, to the point of declaring they haven't bought used music since they were starving students. For a vinyl record collector like me, this is almost inconceivably ludicrous -- there are literally tens of thousands of records from the past that are unavailable any other way. Besides which, I'm a firm believer that all publicity is good publicity when it comes to sales, and that limited dissemination beyond one's own ears of music that one has bought will ultimately help, not hurt, the artist. If I throw a party and spin records at it, BMI and ASCAP will never hear from me, but someone in attendance might be inspired to go out and buy something I played. If I burn a compilation CD-R and give copies to friends, same deal. And who here hasn't bought recorded music used and as a result been inspired to buy more from that artist new, or go see them in concert? Most of the hypotheticals described above are too extreme to reflect reality. The only real exception is file-sharing, which is extreme.

Do the moral worriers here also disapprove of libraries? Because of digital, we seem to be hand-wringing our way toward rewriting the history of intellectual property in Western civilization...

Re: my last post, I should point out that lala(.com) pays up to 20c per trade to the artist.