Music for free...from a dealer?

[Cycleman]

The ethical issue here is quite simple, imo. The legal issue is far more interesting, at least to me.

 

Also interesting, the extent to which people confuse the two...

 

Hey, just trying to understand your perspective here.

 

Are you saying that if something is legal but not ethical, you would do it anyway because the law allows?

[Hailey]

Hey, just trying to understand your perspective here.

 

Are you saying that if something is legal but not ethical, you would do it anyway because the law allows?

 

No. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[christopher3393]

No. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

But you have been quite inconsistent about this in this thread.

 

Buying 1,000 used classical cds is well below market value as well. It may be entirely above board, so I'm not accusing you of anything, just exploring:

 

Has the seller ripped this collection and then sold you the hard copies? Did the seller not need anything close to market value? Or is it not a very desirable collection and in bad shape? Otherwise this kind of deal is very uncommon and practically a gift.

 

Just to be clear, after you rip these, might you sell them and keep the rips? Or might you give them away and keep the rips? If you do give them away, is it plausible that the receiver then gives them away or sells them having ripped them? etc.,etc.

[christopher3393]

Your lazy thinking could get someone in trouble. The only exception to obtaining permission for copying copyrighted material that I am aware of is the right to make a copy of licensed material you own for personal use and even that gets hazy. Copyright laws are not case by case adjudication of individual circumstance.

 

I think kumakuma was being sarcastic.

[kumakuma]

I think kumakuma was being sarcastic.

 

Yup. My head was starting to ache from repeatedly banging it against a brick wall.

[Hailey]

But you have been quite inconsistent about this in this thread.

 

Buying 1,000 used classical cds is well below market value as well. It may be entirely above board, so I'm not accusing you of anything, just exploring:

 

Has the seller ripped this collection and then sold you the hard copies? Did the seller not need anything close to market value? Or is it not a very desirable collection and in bad shape? Otherwise this kind of deal is very uncommon and practically a gift.

 

Just to be clear, after you rip these, might you sell them and keep the rips? Or might you give them away and keep the rips? If you do give them away, is it plausible that the receiver then gives them away or sells them having ripped them? etc.,etc.

 

Actually, I haven't been inconsistent about anything.

 

As for your questions;

 

1) I don't think so but I cannot prove a negative. (can you?)

2) No. The seller is dead so he doesn't need CDs anymore.

3) No.

4) Hadn't occurred to me. Should I?

5) Ditto.

6) Huh?

[Cycleman]

No. The seller is dead so he doesn't need CDs anymore.

 

Whoa! Who says death obviates need?

 

In ancient Egypt style, I want to be buried with all of my CDs, my full audio system, and at least three of my bicycles.

[Sal1950]

I've found it interesting that durung any talk of used CD's no one has mentioned any insistence on a buyers part for proof of the fate of the recordings IP. IOW if you do buy a used CD anywhere do you ask for a legalized statement that the original owner no longer retains any "fair use" copy of that CD. If you really cared about all this stuff you wouldn't buy a used CD without it, right?

Of all the used CD's on ebay or whatever have you ever heard mention of any sort of thing. With all the slanderous calling of "thief" being thrown around here then ebay could be accused of selling stolen property without some similar supporting document, no?

It's obvious that most no one cares.

[christopher3393]

I've found it interesting that durung any talk of used CD's no one has mentioned any insistence on a buyers part for proof of the fate of the recordings IP. IOW if you do buy a used CD anywhere do you ask for a legalized statement that the original owner no longer retains any "fair use" copy of that CD. If you really cared about all this stuff you wouldn't buy a used CD without it, right?

Of all the used CD's on ebay or whatever have you ever heard mention of any sort of thing. With all the slanderous calling of "thief" being thrown around here then ebay could be accused of selling stolen property without some similar supporting document, no?

It's obvious that most no one cares.

 

Sal, if you are addressing me, please feel free to address me directly. My post is intended to suggest the slippery slope that an accumulation of not very consequential actions in and of themselves can lead toward. Of course, you are simply being rhetorical and sarcastic, because no one would ever expect such an impractical standard for buying and selling cds. I'm just suggesting a little reflection on how several million somewhat innocent acts of holding on to copies of music that you have sold and making additional copies to give away starts to add up and chip away at the economic return that others have a right to expect. Think of it like a categorical imperative: what if everybody were to do this (maybe everybody does)? Is that the kind of music marketplace that you want to live in (maybe we already do )? Napster was damaging. Streaming is far less than ideal for the artists. The record companies have things to answer for, granted. Economic models for artists are changing: make money on tours, not music sales. Granted.

 

But does any of this give me the right to be casual or cavalier in how I go about acquiring and distributing my music discs or files? I personally don't. Perhaps Hailey doesn't either. If he had presented the ripping of library discs as the main source of music acquisition as a hypothetical, my response might not have been taken personally. His responses to my posts have been curt, dismissive, and rude, in my opinion. It is hard for me to tell what he really thinks or what you really think about what standards people should hold themselves to. From what you have expressed, your standards don't sound very high to me. Feel free to correct me.

 

Let your own conscience be your guide. But if you post suggesting convenient rationalizations, expect pushback. If you, like Hailey, have a low tolerance for pushback, then think before you post.

[Hailey]

If you, like Hailey, have a low tolerance for pushback, then think before you post.

 

Pushback away, man!

[christopher3393]

Pushback away, man!

 

You've already expressed in one form or another that you are done with me and this thread. You've done this 3 times by my count. Hard to tell what you really intend. And you haven't given civil responses to what I've already presented in 3 posts. Why not start there if you are sincere?

 

Do you have a consistent ethical position on your own acquisition and distribution of music? If so, what is it?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I hate to bring this too far off topic, but this thread reminded me of a bit from Last Week Tonight about journalism. People don't want to pay for journalism like they used to, and journalism is really hurting.

 

This may have to go in its own thread for fear of being "that guy" who derails threads.

 

 

[video=youtube_share;bq2_wSsDwkQ]

[mordante]

Burn the witch!

 

[Hailey]

You've already expressed in one form or another that you are done with me and this thread. You've done this 3 times by my count. Hard to tell what you really intend. And you haven't given civil responses to what I've already presented in 3 posts. Why not start there if you are sincere?

 

Do you have a consistent ethical position on your own acquisition and distribution of music? If so, what is it?

 

Honestly, I haven't thought about. I've never downloaded anything bootlegged, if that's what you mean: I've always considered that stealing.

 

I've never ripped a CD, either. Although now I have a pile of them.

 

You raise a good point about what I'll do with the CDs after I've ripped them. Selling them would feel sneaky. I'll probably leave them at the pick and swap at the town dump. That doesn't bother me in least.

[christopher3393]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28317[/ATTACH]

 

[esldude]

Not exactly on topic unless we talk about copies of classic gear.

 

UK copyright extension on designed objects is “direct assault” on 3D printing | Ars Technica

 

Copyright of designed objects changed to life of designer plus 70 years in the UK.

[Sal1950]

Sal, if you are addressing me, please feel free to address me directly. My post is intended to suggest the slippery slope that an accumulation of not very consequential actions in and of themselves can lead toward.

 

Let your own conscience be your guide. But if you post suggesting convenient rationalizations, expect pushback. If you, like Hailey, have a low tolerance for pushback, then think before you post.

Honestly sir, no I was not referring directly to you but to the general upheaval of righteousness that sprung up in this thread. Not sure what you mean by a low tolerance to pushback but if it makes anyone here feel good to call others names, push away, I'm ex-military and have a very thick skin.

My more general point is other than Teresa, I don't remember anyone else here saying "oh on, I've never received a used CD", and if you have, then how do you know your not also a "thief" if you have no knowledge of the provenance of said used CD?

Otherwise I really don't care about the rest. IMO the current legal situation of IP is wrong headed and was bought and paid for by the major labels/artists lawyers with their incredible profits from such.

I don't lose any sleep over any of it.

[17629v2]

Honestly sir, no I was not referring directly to you but to the general upheaval of righteousness that sprung up in this thread. Not sure what you mean by a low tolerance to pushback but if it makes anyone here feel good to call others names, push away, I'm ex-military and have a very thick skin.

My more general point is other than Teresa, I don't remember anyone else here saying "oh on, I've never received a used CD", and if you have, then how do you know your not also a "thief" if you have no knowledge of the provenance of said used CD?

Otherwise I really don't care about the rest. IMO the current legal situation of IP is wrong headed and was bought and paid for by the major labels/artists lawyers with their incredible profits from such.

I don't lose any sleep over any of it.

 

I know I'm wasting my time replying to this, but really? The original post talks about a dealer that loads TB's of copied, high quality music on to a hard drive and gives it to customers free of charge. You're really going to compare that to a person selling 1 copy of an original CD? Maybe I just misread your post and you were just kidding?

[Sal1950]

I know I'm wasting my time replying to this, but really? The original post talks about a dealer that loads TB's of copied, high quality music on to a hard drive and gives it to customers free of charge. You're really going to compare that to a person selling 1 copy of an original CD? Maybe I just misread your post and you were just kidding?

 

I also have no intent of debating the point further but, 1 CD or a TB full, ethics should be ethics if you so strongly believe in the issue, should they not?

Cent' Anni

[17629v2]

You've already expressed in one form or another that you are done with me and this thread. You've done this 3 times by my count. Hard to tell what you really intend. And you haven't given civil responses to what I've already presented in 3 posts. Why not start there if you are sincere?

 

Do you have a consistent ethical position on your own acquisition and distribution of music? If so, what is it?

 

He's just playing games with you. Every so often someone brings this exact topic up just to start an argument. This time its here. Several times on Audiogon. But its always the exact same argument. Someone finds these one or two articles and purposefully misreads them to start a legal argument. I don't know if its the same person that starts it over and over again, or if the IQ is split up over a few people, but the only intent is to make a problem.

 

Here's a post from the last time they did this on AG. Its from a well meaning member, just like you, trying to give a reasonable response to what he thinks is a legit discussion.

 

"From our "friends" at RIAA:

 

 

"Copying CDs

 

 

It’s okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but not for commercial purposes.

 

 

Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

 

 

• The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own.

 

 

• The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

 

 

• The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.

 

 

• Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make."

 

 

In other words, the original, physical CD (or whatever) is your license to possess a copyrighted work in whatever format you, personally, may have transferred it to. You must continue to own the original CD. If you haven't the original CD, you've no license to possess a copy of the work no matter the form or format. And you most certainly can not legally or ethically transfer a copyrighted CD to someone else for them to make copy. It's pretty straightforward and only fair to the musicians.

 

 

Doing what I do, LP to CD transcription and remastering, requires that I have a high awareness of the copyright laws involved. Mostly, I work for the person or label who owns the copyright on the original recording. But If I do a transfer for an individual, I, and any reputable transfer service, will be adamant that my customer owns the LP personally and that they will not give up possession of it. It's their license to own the CD transfer *FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE ONLY*."

[Hailey]

He's just playing games with you. Every so often someone brings this exact topic up just to start an argument. This time its here. Several times on Audiogon. But its always the exact same argument. Someone finds these one or two articles and purposefully misreads them to start a legal argument. I don't know if its the same person that starts it over and over again, or if the IQ is split up over a few people, but the only intent is to make a problem.

 

Here's a post from the last time they did this on AG. Its from a well meaning member, just like you, trying to give a reasonable response to what he thinks is a legit discussion.

 

"From our "friends" at RIAA:

 

 

"Copying CDs

 

 

It’s okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but not for commercial purposes.

 

 

Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

 

 

• The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own.

 

 

• The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

 

 

• The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.

 

 

• Remember, it’s never okay to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make."

 

 

In other words, the original, physical CD (or whatever) is your license to possess a copyrighted work in whatever format you, personally, may have transferred it to. You must continue to own the original CD. If you haven't the original CD, you've no license to possess a copy of the work no matter the form or format. And you most certainly can not legally or ethically transfer a copyrighted CD to someone else for them to make copy. It's pretty straightforward and only fair to the musicians.

 

 

Doing what I do, LP to CD transcription and remastering, requires that I have a high awareness of the copyright laws involved. Mostly, I work for the person or label who owns the copyright on the original recording. But If I do a transfer for an individual, I, and any reputable transfer service, will be adamant that my customer owns the LP personally and that they will not give up possession of it. It's their license to own the CD transfer *FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE ONLY*."

 

I'm not saying I disagree, but this is RIAA, which neither makes not enforces law. I still would like someone to point out the actual statute that forbids this.

 

Not sure why this is such an unreasonable request.

[mansr]

I'm not saying I disagree, but this is RIAA, which neither makes not enforces law. I still would like someone to point out the actual statute that forbids this.

 

Not sure why this is such an unreasonable request.

Actually, the RIAA does make the law. Unfortunately.

[Hailey]

Actually, the RIAA does make the law. Unfortunately.

 

RIAA makes the law as much as you or I do. I'm not saving it's wrong. But, again, how do we know?

 

It's one thing for someone to say something is "wrong." That's fine. But it's another to say something is "illegal."

 

How do you know?

 

Don't cite librarians, newspaper articles, recording industry lobbyists. Cite the f**king statute. (Note to literalists: I mean the relevant language in the statute.)

 

Of all the yakking on this thread (including my own), the most enlightening came from @clipper. I assume s/he's a lawyer, perhaps a paralegal, perhaps associated with copyright holding interests (irony: I happen to be one of those copyright holding interests, so one might say I'm acting against my own self-interest here).

 

In any event, s/he has yet to respond to the questions I asked regarding "time-shifting" vs "library-building" and the Google Books case.

 

Hope s/he does, though. I'd love to find out what the facts are here.

[master]

I'm just wondering...

 

1. Folks are climbing the moral high horse because its a forum and pretty much everyone is anonymous and can claim anything?

2. Folks are really that honest in everything they do and have never cheated, lied, stolen, or done anything wrong in their lives?

3. Folks are against piracy because its an audio forum and we all love music and we want to continue enjoying this hobby... so its in our best interests that musicians continue to get paid and that incentivizes them to continue to put out good music?

 

PS: No skin in the game and I pay for my music... but I also won't claim I've never made a mixtape or CD for my crush in high school or my buddy at the workplace... honestly who hasn't?

 

[mansr]

RIAA makes the law as much as you or I do.

 

RIAA and MPAA lobbyists practically write copyright law.