Getting rid of CD's?

[lucretius]

11 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.

 

Yes. I've downloaded a few SACD images for the SACD's I had already purchased.  I wouldn't think of selling the SACD's while retaining the images.  Nonetheless, I'm not going to pay again to acquire images for SACDs I already purchased.

[lucretius]

23 hours ago, Grayson64 said:

In any case, I have decided to keep most of the CD's, but get rid of the ones I don't like as much.  The digital copies will stay in my library, but the discs are headed to the local public library so anyone else can listen if they like.

 

Ahh .. the local public library.  How many people are ripping copies from these disks? 

[lucretius]

23 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

In my case, the artist was paid more than once for the same music:  (only one example)

Exile on Main Street:

Vinyl, CD, SACD, imported Japanese flat transfer........   Mr. Jagger can thank me later.

 

 

 

Perhaps someone should launch a class action suit against the record companies?

[lucretius]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm with you. If I get caught, I'm willing to take the punishment. If I think the law should be changed, I follow the correct procedure. 

 

Is that an admission of guilt?

[lucretius]

4 hours ago, DancingSea said:

And the moral side of the equation is far more personal than law.  With morality, there is nothing cast in stone, no tablets to refer to, nothing in actual writing that must be adhered to.  Taking this CD situation, its up to each of us to decide if its morally right to sell used CD's and not delete the rips.The OP's scenario is like that.  The law becomes irrelevant due to inability to enforce.  Its all about one's personal morality and sense of safety.

 

This is moral relativism and clearly should be rejected.  However, this is not the place for such arguments.

[lucretius]

6 hours ago, DancingSea said:

 

I freely admit I find these sorts of thoughts very interesting, scientifically speaking.

 

The morality of the question at hand seems to have its roots in capitalism.  Its principles are held sacrosanct.  If we are aligned with capitalistic principles, we are moral.  If we contradict capitalism, we are immoral, a theif.

 

To other perspectives, lets take the Native Americans, or Hawaiians as an example - capitalism itself is terribly immoral.  To them, the notion of a system that allows enormous wealth to be possessed by the few at the expense of the whole is the essence of immorality.  The concept of private property was a complete mystery to these peoples.   In their experience, capitalism is the biggest thief of all.

 

Even Jesus said its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

I have no intention to decree who is correct - who ultimately knows? -  the movement is only to observe the interplay of thought.

 

Which is to say, I find it interesting how diverse these opinions have been.  A baseline must be drawn, and using that as a yard stick, morality is determined by comparing a situation to the "moral" baseline.

 

Yet across history, that very baseline has proven to be made of shifting sands.

 

Who among us owns the true morality?  Who among us possesses the ultimate truth by which all can be judged?  

 

Perhaps our personal morality is merely sitting in the long shadows cast by judgment, guilt and condemnation?  In that very dark shadow, is it possible to see what is actually moral?  Seems true morality can only be determined by setting aside culture, philosophy, beliefs, history, ourselves, even the field of time in its totality.  Who among us is able to achieve such a state?

 

Who is qualified to cast the first stone?

 

Castles made of sand, melt into the sea, eventually.

 

Why all the sophistry? Your claim (disguised as a question) that noone has a right to make moral judgments is itself a judgment about others and me. Your claim, therefore, is self-refuting. Do you really believe that whether an action is "right" or "wrong" depends on an individual's beliefs of right and wrong? Others, who believe in objective morality, seem to have no problem in identifying the case at hand (retaining soft copies of music ...) as "wrong", yet this seems to be something that trips you up.

 

 

[lucretius]

10- chars  

[lucretius]

9 hours ago, DancingSea said:

 

Quote

People on both sides of this debate are reaching - for them - a moral conclusion.  The cause of the divergent views is not objective.  The root is entirely subjective.

 

No. Moral relativists such as yourself are reaching a moral conclusion applicable for themselves only. Others are expressing a moral judgement that applies to everyone -- nothing subjective about it.

 

The source of the divergent views has been discussed. Your opponents rightly see the direct harm to others as well as the indirect harm arising from not complying with law, whereas you fail to acknowledge any such harm ("utterly harmless behavior", "this is not pirating"). Again, nothing subjective about it.

 

Quote

Rather than spend more time at the level of debate, it strikes me more interesting to look under the hood, to question the morality of morality so to speak - to explore how we make our conclusions, and why.

 

Again, it's clear that both you and your opponents are appealing to harm.  The difference is you think the activity in question is harmless.  Are you looking for something that would validate your view that the activity is harmless?

 

Quote

No judgment.  Just exploration

 

Of course there is judgement [forgive me for not using the American spelling].  You have judged your opponents' moral view on this specific matter as incorrect and you have judged the act of selling off one's CD collection while retaining the rips as morally acceptable.