Getting rid of CD's?

[foodfiend]

Let's be clear about what are the legalities involved in this. I am sure that when they originally came up with the idea of selling recorded music, the music industry lobbied the IPO of countries to control the proliferation of copies, so as to make sure that the recording artist and record label get their just royalties. Even when CDs came out, there was no way for the general public to copy the contents without loss in quality at that point in time.

 

I am also sure that no one at that time could envisage that recorded music could then be reduced to a computer file, and could easily be copied without loss in quality.

 

That is why the laws in many countries only allow you the right to personal replay of the music from that particular media.

 

Fast forward to this current day and age, where FLACs and DSFs are being sold in addition to mp3s and AACs, many countries only allow you to own that particular copy of the file, and you are not even allowed to sell that file on to others if you get tired of it (unlike being able to sell a CD).

 

Let's get to the heart of why this is. The ability of being able to resell a CD, is based on the idea of unit of replay, that you theoretically lose the right to play the music on it once you on-sell that CD. Again, this is tied to the antiquated laws that did not have digital copies in mind.

 

Wherever you are, be aware of the copyright laws in the country that you are living in, since IP laws are governed by jurisdictions/countries, and don't run afoul with the laws.

[foodfiend]

3 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

If I can listen to rips with my friends why they can not listen the same rips without me? What if went to the bathroom or dozed? Should they stop immediately? Could I come with my rips to my friend house and listen together? What if went away for a minute (day, forever)?

If you go in accordance to the essence of the law, the licence is for personal replay/enjoyment, with or without friends. I am sure they are "allowed" to listen to the rips if you dozed off (you are still there in person), or went to bathroom (you are still in the same house/apartment).

 

It would also be alright if you brought your copy of the rip to your friend's house to listen together, but that rip does not get copied to your friend's media, but stays on your media (HDD, USB, etc). It would be similar to the instant if you brought a CD instead of the rip.

 

If you went away? Presumably then it no longer is possible for your friends to enjoy the music that you own. Since you are neither there in person, nor they at your house.

 

While this would be nearly impossible to police, this is the spirit of the laws that are in place.

[foodfiend]

Just now, AnotherSpin said:

 

I see you logic, still funny questions are coming. What if somebody drives my car and listens my CDs or digital files from the memory stick. Is it violation of law? What if a friend lives in a flat which I own and listens my music without me?

I think the answers are more obvious if you follow the essence of the law... Stop trying to split hairs...

[foodfiend]

8 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

It is not a hairsplitting, just trying to help OP to find a way get rid from a piles of plastic and paper and feel himself law-abiding at the same time..)

 

I think this was stated almost right from the start...

10 hours ago, Paul R said:

Hate to say it, but your license to play the music --> probably <-- depends upon your ownership of the physical CDs. Meaning if you keep the music on disk, you may be required to keep the discs too. 

 

If space is really of the concern, one can always get rid of the jewel-cases, and just store the discs and inserts.

[foodfiend]

3 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

Is there any good alternative for archiving that doesn't involve keeping the plastic CD cases?

How about sleeves like these?They definitely save the space! If you are afraid about CD-rot or mould, place the sleeves in an air-sealed case with silica gel.

 

[foodfiend]

15 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think copyright law changes based on the amount paid for a copyrighted work. 

 

You are correct to presume that the copyright holder/owner still controls the rights to distribution.

[foodfiend]

26 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

Or, Radiohead were selling their new album from a website for a price selected by a buyer, including 0.00 as well. What about copying of this?

There is still copyright attached, even if you did not pay for it. Also, just because you attached zero cost to your copy, does not mean that everyone does so. Remember that if they are hosting the distribution of the source material (of which they own the copyright), they will be collecting user data (usually email addresses, which are not zero value for marketing), of which you deprive them of when you distribute copies that you make.

[foodfiend]

26 minutes ago, Audio_ELF said:

It's there performance, they can put whatever conditions they like on it.

Yup, Grateful Dead hold the copyright in that case, and can decide on how it should and can be distributed.

 

27 minutes ago, Audio_ELF said:

You can't (legally).  Same with CDs given away for free with magazines / newspapers or mail in offers.

Correct! In the case of free CDs given away with magazines and newspapers, it is the magazine or newspapers that have already paid for the copyrighted copy that you then get for free. It does not mean that you are free to distribute it.

[foodfiend]

8 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

There are several large "used CD/DVD" stores in my state.   They sell used CDs, DVDs, vinyl, games...etc.  I would be surprised if the artist or the  label receives any revenue from the sale of these items.

 

As for the record companies, when they give reparations to the families of all the old blues artists they ripped off over the last 105 years, then we can talk about who owns my CD collection.

That is why I think the music labels are trying hard to reinvent the whole revenue model here. The old single copy of media does not really make sense in the digital age, where digital copies are easily made if there is no DRM present (and consumers all abhor DRM). The whole streaming model removes any ownership, and your ability to stream the music is tied to your account.

 

At least, in the case of the "used CD/DVD" stores, the previous owner of the CD/DVD theoretically has to get rid of any digital copies they have of the CD/DVD after selling to the store. That single licence to listen/watch then gets moved to another person. The problem is that there are people out there who buy a CD, rip it, and then sell it off (or worse, return it to the store for money back), and retain the digital copy.

 

Streaming circumvents the issue with illegal digital copies, since you no longer have a file to copy, and you officially no longer own the right for replay, except through an account.

[foodfiend]

21 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

I do not see how the artist gets anything out of this trade.  The artist only gets paid for the initial (new) sale.

Not just the artist, but the music label, and hence the labels are trying to do something about it by changing the revenue model.

[foodfiend]

15 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

@foodfriend.   Good post.  How much can the average middle income family afford for this brave new streaming world?

 

Cell phone = monthly charge

Internet = monthly charge

Hulu = monthly charge

Amazon Prime = monthly charge

NetFlix = monthly charge

Pandora = 

Tidal =

Whatever =

ya da ya da =

 

 

 

 

This reminds me very much of "hire purchase" where people are fooled into committing by the low upfront cost, but end up paying much more in the long run. Take the streaming music or video examples. What happens when you terminate your contract/account? You effectively are left with nothing but a faint memory...

[foodfiend]

16 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

I find the use of the word "ethics" in relation to the music business to be insanely funny.

While many in the music business are not with the strongest of ethics, they are entitled to make money however is legal. For as long as there is a willing seller and willing buyer, there will be trade.

 

However, I do believe that the business model for the music industry is well and truly broken... It resembles a VC/PE model in terms of financing!

[foodfiend]

12 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

No, it doesn't. It just gets easier than ever to copy contents. Remember that access to content is not anymore an issue - people today just go to Youtube and download anything they want for free. Perhaps we're part of the 1% who don't because the quality is crap, but be assured that most people who don't have a Spotify etc. account do this. 

Well, it is a matter of time before the likes of YouTube and streaming services will include DRM of sorts. YouTube is already clamping down on content creators, but they should really look at making it more difficult to download and playback the streamed content.

[foodfiend]

21 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

How one can be forced to verify the possession of a CD (physical copy)? It would be close to impossible for any copyrights holder to prove that one does not own a physical copy (search warrant to find nothing)? Laws which are unenforceable are not very useful.

Totally agree that it is not really enforceable. In fact, I doubt that any music label would bother with an individual and whether he/she owns a physical copy of a CD, when using a digital one (if the digital one wasn't bought online).

 

24 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

Distributing digital copies is obviously a very different mater.

As streaming will be soon the main distribution mode the possession of physical discs or digital files stored on some HDD etc. will become pretty irrelevant for the majority of music consumers.

Yes, and I think this is the music industry trying to change the consumer's concept of consumption of music to the "pay-for-use" model. Compared with the current "copy-ownership" model, each has its advantages and disadvantages. Call me traditional, but I don't like the new subscription-type model, since it is like a rent - you don't have any rights after your subscription ends.

 

It is also their way to rid themselves of the problem of piracy, with the consumer no longer fixated on having copies of the music. Although it is still early days to see if significant numbers will then hack streaming services to gain free access - another form of piracy.

[foodfiend]

12 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Good idea. Right now there are people posting complete albums on YouTube with just a picture of the album cover. The artist didn't give them permission to do so. Music videos from record companies who have accounts with YouTube are legit though.

I do think that YouTube is trying to clean things up, but I do worry when I see complete albums being posted on YouTube.

 

On the topic of buying physical copies, what about Out-of-Print albums? It does get frustrating that you can no longer get a new copy. And it may even be impossible to get a copy on the second-hand market if it was a small production run by an emerging/underground band.

[foodfiend]

2 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

This is exactly what I like. One should be able to stay away or to get rid of material remnants of whatever he or she doesn't use or need anymore. To have or to be? Classic dichotomy which was summarized for modern reader in a great book by Erich Fromm. Subscription is much better than ownership, imho. Though not ideal, because of still certain commitment inferred.

While I do like being able to rid myself of the "material remnants" of something I no longer need, I really do not like the "commitment inferred" by subscription.

 

I like the freedom with the acquisition model, since I can stop buying music if I am running low on money, and stick to listening to the music I already own. Can't do that for a subscription, which is all-or-nothing.

[foodfiend]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

I have seen out-of-print SACDs show up as high resolution downloads. For underground bands perhaps a google search will turn up a download. Also check used record stores as all kinds CDs ends up there.

Trust me, I do. There aren't many "used record" stores in my country, but I almost always visit them when I am overseas.

[foodfiend]

19 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

YouTube is a very interesting platform. It is true that there are copyright infringements in videos bla bla black but thats not important really. YouTube is the modern version of the TV in a sense. You can watch whatever you please, all for free. Artists publish their stuff and get paid for the views and at the same time they get direct publicity. There is no need to middlemen (other than Google) to get something published, but at the same time labels have their own channels. I find more music through YouTube nowadays rather than anywhere else, also all sorts of rarities can be found there - of course, quality is not great.

I do agree that Youtube is an interesting platform, and applaud the various creative efforts by people who have managed to monetize their works. From movie/television reviews and analyses, to mini-documentaries on travel, working abroad, etc.

 

I think you took my comment on Youtube, DRM and the need for control out of context. It was in response to the following statement by Teresa:

14 hours ago, Teresa said:

Right now there are people posting complete albums on YouTube with just a picture of the album cover. The artist didn't give them permission to do so. Music videos from record companies who have accounts with YouTube are legit though.

 

It is pointing to copyright infringement, of which, I am glad to note, Youtube has been tackling.

 

24 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

Looking at all that's happening in the world of music, it somehow makes me sad to see this obscure side of music where people have to keep their CDs in a safe fearing the copyright police. 

 

Ps. Nothing directed to you or anyone else, just some Monday night ranting

No offence taken, really! I keep the physical copies of my CDs, because I do like to take the out for a spin sometimes. I am not a complete computer audiophile, and also play vinyl on the side.

[foodfiend]

21 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

It is interesting to note that in the article quoted, they say that there is a greater amount of illegal proliferation of copyright by sheer distribution of copies to family and friends, than actually through peer-to-peer torrent sites.

 

So, the RIAA's lawyers are just picking easy targets.

 

It is a sad state of affairs, and partly due to the American legal system's use of "discovery". This can make the cost of legal proceedings very expensive.

 

In fact, the American legal system is also filled with unscrupulous lawyers who go after people, knowing that they have no way of launching a credible legal defence due to the costs involved. They threaten the party, who then asks to settle out-of-court. No wonder lawyers tend to have an awful reputation!

 

Another interesting point is that many of those who flout the copyright laws do it knowingly. I wonder who much of their "justification" to break the law stems in their belief that the music labels are over-pricing music to support their broken financial model?

[foodfiend]

9 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Authorizations from criminals, who likely have "stolen" the content from the artist in the first place? The mentality of a corrupt culture....The Record Label, is always right?

By your philosophy, is it then legal to kill someone (who is guilty of murder, say) by your own hands? Isn't society today, based on the rule of law?

[foodfiend]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Wow - getting a little over the top here maybe...

 

We are talking about legally purchased CDs here, and whether the CD owner has the right to retain the music after he sells or gives away the CD.  In the US, it is pretty hard to argue that this is legal or moral in most cases.  In other parts of the world, doing that may be both legal and moral. Even admirable. 

 

It is not a matter of life or death. And the artists made whatever deal they made with their recording company. If it was a bad deal, it is still the deal they made. Same for writers or any other artistic or creative pursuit.

 

Not Klingon Puppies! (If you miss that reference, search for it on the system. That will tell you much more about this age old argument. 

 

 

You mistake my point. I was referring to what Albrecht posted:

12 hours ago, Albrecht said:

Authorizations from criminals, who likely have "stolen" the content from the artist in the first place? The mentality of a corrupt culture....The Record Label, is always right?

I may be mistaken, but it seems that he is justifying the act of piracy, just because the music labels are corrupt and have "stolen" content from the artiste...

[foodfiend]

Talking about earning your keep as a musician, there are better ways to publish your music, such as bandcamp. There are also the crowdfunding sites, like Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and the music-focused PledgeMusic.

 

However, I fear we are moving off point, so let's get back to the topic of "getting rid of one's CDs"...

[foodfiend]

1 hour ago, unbalanced output said:

Respectfully, we agree to disagree on revenue share x total revenue. Those are completely different things and you didn't get the point (neither I'm insisting). 

 

Back to topic, what happens if one loses the CD but still keeps the box? In most countries in Europe it seems it's perfectly legal to keep the rips under fair use (purchase receipts are more than enough if one keeps them). 

I guess that it can be argued that you can't possibly own the CD case, without once owning the CD, so theoretically, it could be legal to keep the rip. However, I am not sure if there is a legal precedent for this.

[foodfiend]

24 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Besides your analogy being a stretch, - there is no law here. The courts have granted a "so called fair use" policy to personal duplication. It is an issue of re-distribution. Besides, Criminal Capitalists who purchase the court systems in the USA (in particular), create the rule of law.

Also, as a songwriter who collects royalties, and at one time, ran a record label; I may have a different perspective.

Whether the laws are rigged or unfair does not give you reason to break it - hence my extreme stretch on murder. If you believe the laws are bad, you could always lobby for a change, and even lead a coalition for change. However, before that happens, the rule of the law should prevail.

[foodfiend]

9 minutes ago, Jeremy Anderson said:

As an aside, I always assumed that creating a "backup copy" under "fair use" was an ironclad right granted to the consumer. This article seems to assert otherwise -- and that all fair use (under US law) is truly a case-by-case decision:

 

https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php

 

If that's correct, it opens up a huge can of legal worms and opportunity for (ab)use by the Copyright holder, as all they need is to win one case that bears a strong similarity to many other cases (that they haven't pursued) to gain a ruling which establishes a legal precedent for all future litigation. Then "the dominos fall" and their only real decision about whether to pursue the consumer is whether they feel the consumer has enough assets to pursue for a single payout of perceived damages.

 

Of course, the old adage "you can shear a sheep 1,000 times, by you can only skin him once" also applies:

 

If the RIAA sued you and won for making and using backup copies under fair use (assuming your motives were truly pure), would you ever buy their music again?

Could you give me an example of what particular use of my back-up copies under fair use are they supposed to come after me for? Sorry, but I am not exactly too imaginative of options.