Getting rid of CD's?

[unbalanced output]

I have at least one practical question regarding this. The laws here are set to change next year, so I'm not throwing anything away just yet. However, I would like to keep what is left from my collection as compact as possible. Is there any good alternative for archiving that doesn't involve keeping the plastic CD cases? They look horrible after a few years anyways. 

 

I have opened my CD boxes a few months ago after many years of storage, and I'm sad to find out that many CDs are unreadable or missing  

[unbalanced output]

I hate this stuff (used it for backups and the plastic stuff eventually leaves a mark on the CDs) and they don't keep the album art. 

 

Another practical question. When I buy music from some sites, all I get is an email with a download link that says I can download it 2-3 times and a thank you goodbye. I don't get a certificate or a register somewhere (with few exceptions like chaps from NativeDSD). Similar question for when I download a sample of an album - tomorrow they may not be given away for free anymore. How does one track all this? Many albums are still sold with physical copies (sometimes at no additional cost), but I just find it stupid to keep piling up stuff in the cellar that I will never use. I see the point of having to keep the physical copies as a "proof of ownership", however with the world of digital downloads things are not as clear anymore. How is this done outside the mainstram iTunes & co sites which I've never used anyhow?

[unbalanced output]

15 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

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.

 

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. 

[unbalanced output]

On 30/07/2017 at 8:28 PM, foodfiend said:

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.

 

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. 

 

Already years ago Monty Python published all their old sketches because they were fed up with sketchy (sic) versions of their videos! Such visionaries! Postmodern Jukebox was also propelled through YouTube, which in turn brought several talented artists to the spotlight. And so on.

 

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

[unbalanced output]

1 hour ago, foodfiend said:

 

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:

 

Yes, I did. Sorry, I just used your post to  get a bit on the phylosophical side. 

[unbalanced output]

52 minutes ago, firedog said:

But let's get some perspective, with some rough figures of what YouTube pays: unless you are a mega artist and can negotiate a special contract with YouTube, and get all sorts of ads to sponsor your channel, the going rate comes out to about $2000 for a million views of a song video. Very hard to make a living with that rate. Only the handful of megastars make a real living from YouTube streaming. Worst royalties in the industry. 

 

And AFAIR, songwriter royalties are almost non-existent: something like $30-$40  per million views. And if you aren't knowledgeable enough to know how to "claim" your songwriting royalties in advance of every version that gets put out, you may be paid nothing. In short, it's setup from the beginning not to pay artists. Only Google and other corporate interests actually benefit. 

 

Traditional CD buying pays the artist about $1 per disc, and songwriting royalties are significant enough that a successful songwriter makes a good living. 

Just another reason to buy disc (or at least paid digital download) of artists you like. 

 

It's a bit OT for sure and I apologise for that, but - artists don't get payed per views, but on the revenue made from videos. The payment per view is lower since the average quality of ads is lower than other services (e.g. other video streaming services don't allow skipping ads or using ad blockers so the pay ratio is higher). Youtube is not a good platform for listening to music, but when it comes to music clips - well, it displaced MTV out of the business. 

 

It's just another platform for music artists, but from the point of view of the consumer it's great (it's free and artists make money out of it!). The argument that artists make $1 per disc to me is broken, that's 10% of an USD 10 album. Youtube's revenue per view may be low, but creators average a take 55% of the revenue. Tell me which one is fairer?

[unbalanced output]

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).