Getting rid of CD's?

[Teresa]

17 hours ago, unbalanced output said:

Is there any good alternative for archiving that doesn't involve keeping the plastic CD cases? They look horrible after a few years anyways.

 

CD cases (plastic or cardboard) don't have to look horrible, you can purchase plastic outer sleeves that keep them looking new, at 18 cents per disc. Japanese CD Top Sealing Resealable Outer Sleeves (100 Pack)

 

You might want to check them out before ditching the CD cases. Hope this helps.

[Teresa]

16 hours ago, ted_b said:

...We all have them ripped (at least once)...

 

Ted, I tried ripping a few CDs to the uncompressed .wav and .aiff formats and I find I like the sound of my physical discs on my Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player better than through my Teac USB DSD DAC. So I must be a rare exception to your rule.

 

15 hours ago, rando said:

Show of hands, how many of you erase every single trace of every single copy of a track that became unplayable on the original source CD? 

 

I thought that was one of the reasons to make a digital copy in case the original becomes unplayable. I am adventuresome as I don't have my physical discs backed up to digital files. I do have my 24 bit PCM and DSD downloads backed up though.

 

13 hours 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...

 

That is the reason that one is supposed to erase all copies of a physical product when they sell or trade in a physical disc, the right to it travels with the disc. The royalties were paid once when the disc was new, the seller gives up all rights to listen to the music as that right passes to the new owner who purchased the used disc.

 

13 hours ago, foodfiend said:

...(and consumers all abhor DRM)...

 

I'm an exception to your observation as my favorite format is SACD and it is copy protected. Of course SACD has been hacked, but I've been a fan since 2000 so the presence of DRM doesn't bother me. I use the built-in DAC in my Yamaha / Blu-ray player, I love its sound quality.

 

13 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

Yes, the resellers are paying the general public who bring in old/used items.  As a side point, I am sure some of the CDs were copied before sale to the reseller.   I do not see how the artist gets anything out of this trade.  The artist only gets paid for the initial (new) sale.

 

Yes the artists only get paid for the new sale and that is why one is supposed to delete all copies of any disc they sell or give away, as the rights to listen to the music pass to the new owner.

 

13 hours ago, 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.

 

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.

[Teresa]

14 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

....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 =

 

There are alternatives, just saying. The only monthly charge I pay is my apartment rent and my landline telephone bill. 

 

I have no cell phone and I don't want one, ever! I have a corded landline phone that I paid $6 for brand new. My last corded phone cost $10 and lasted over 20 years.

 

Free wi-fi internet is included with my rent, more and more apartment complexes are including internet service.

 

I have an HDTV with a cheap $15 antenna and I get perfect reception of the 24 free over-the-air television stations, the major networks are 1080p, many of the independents are 720i, however some are only 480p, all have excellent sound quality, So I see no reason to pay for Hulu, Amazon Prime or NetFlix. I buy used DVDs for $1 to $2 each and Blu-rays for $3 to $5 at local pawn shops and thrift stores. So I see no advantage to pay a monthly fee for TV.

 

I never have had a music streaming service but from what I have seen they wouldn't be of benefit to me as I prefer audiophile recordings. I might consider one if it was lossless, had the complete catalogs of Telarc, Reference Recordings and other audiophile labels, as well as needle drops of all direct-to-disc LPs ever issued. I'm not holding my breath. 

[Teresa]

25 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

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.

 

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.

[Teresa]

On 7/31/2017 at 6:00 AM, Kal Rubinson said:

On 7/31/2017 at 1:25 AM, Teresa said:

I buy used DVDs for $1 to $2 each and Blu-rays for $3 to $5 at local pawn shops and thrift stores. 

On 7/31/2017 at 1:01 AM, Teresa said:

Yes the artists only get paid for the new sale and that is why one is supposed to delete all copies of any disc they sell or give away, as the rights to listen to the music pass to the new owner.

 

So, you are OK with this?

 

On 7/31/2017 at 8:45 AM, joelha said:

Kal,

 

You're asking whether Teresa would be o.k. with deleting copies of discs before selling those discs?

 

If that's your question, why wouldn't she be o.k. with this? It seems like the right thing to do.

 

Joel

 

Kal,

 

Joe is correct for the reason I'm OK with this.

 

One is supposed to delete all copies of a physical disc when they give away, sell or trade it in because the right to play the music from the disc travels with the disc. The royalties were paid once when the disc was new, the seller gives up all rights to listen to the music or play the movie as that right passes to the new owner who purchased the used disc.

 

It is not up to the buyer to make sure the seller deletes their copies. However, if a seller volunteers that they copied the discs and they are keeping the copies I will not buy from them. The only legal reason to give away, sell or trade any music or movie disc is because one doesn't like it. If they keep any copies they made, it is both illegal and immoral IMHO.

[Teresa]

On 8/1/2017 at 3:43 PM, kumakuma said:

 

I think most of us here on CA are listening to a copy of the original CD, rather than the actual polycarbonate disc.

 

Most yes, but not all. I prefer the sound of my CDs and even my Reference Recordings 24/176.4 HRx data discs on my Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player using its internal DAC to the .wav music files I ripped of them played on my Mac Mini though my Teac DSD DAC. And my Teac DAC cost me three times as much as my Yamaha Blu-ray/SACD player, go figure. Some may say I need a better USB cable (I use a cheap Dynex), however since only 10% of my music is on my computer, it's not cost effective to spend more on a USB cable. 90% of my music is on SACDs, Blu-rays, 24/176.4 HRxs, 24/96 DVDs, HDCDs and CDs.

 

On 8/3/2017 at 1:19 PM, DancingSea said:

 

While you may be technically correct, in practice, this feels overly strict to me.  If I'm at a garage sale and someone has a box of CD's for sale, I'm not going ask them if they deleted their digital copy and call the FBI if they haven't  

 

On 8/3/2017 at 1:31 PM, Speed Racer said:

 

That is not your responsibility. When you buy the CDs, you get the right to listen to those CDs and make backups. The person that sold them gave up those rights and, by law, should delete all backup copies they may have.

 

DancingSea,

 

Speed Racer is correct. It's not your position to ask if they deleted their digital copies, that is their responsibility. However if they tell me they are keeping the copies they made I will not buy from them. 

 

On 8/7/2017 at 1:20 AM, Jud said:

Careful...

 

You can make a backup copy in the US and listen to it, except when  you perhaps can’t.  For example, making a personal backup copy of an SACD....

 

Jud, 

 

SACD, DVD and Blu-ray all have copy protection and it is currently illegal to defeat copy protection even for personal use. Some DVDs and Blu-ray discs include a digital copy disc or a download code for UltraViolet or iTunes, this is the only legal way to have a copy of a DVD or Blu-ray disc. However, if one gives away, sells or trades in the disc they must also delete the copy as it would now be an illegal copy.

 

I understand with SACD people want to play the disc through a DSD DAC for better sound quality, however officially that is an illegal copy. The only legal way I know of to play an SACD through an eternal DAC is with one of the newer DACs that have an HDMI input.

[Teresa]

3 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

I know. It's pretty simple: if you give the CDs away, or sell them, and keep the rips or other backups you've made, you are pirating music. It's the same thing as me buying a CD, ripping it, and selling it on the forum. It's not right. If your morals allow that, go for it.

 

I agree, it is not just about the law, but what is the morally correct to do.

 

I have printed receipts for all of the downloads on my computer and backup disc. I have deleted free supposedly legal downloads from record labels and magazine websites for which I have no receipt. I have even went so far as to delete free high resolution downloads I received and reviewed when I was a writer for Positive Feedback Online. So I believe I am 100% within any interpretation of the law. Why? Because I believe it is the right thing to do.

[Teresa]

On 8/18/2017 at 2:05 AM, DancingSea said:

 

Wow!  That's utterly amazing.

 

I have done absolutely none of that.  Why?  Because I believe its the right thing to do.  And I jaywalk as well, every chance I get.  And I usually drive 5 - 8 miles over the speed limit, almost without fail, all with zero tickets in over 30 years.  

 

When exactly do you expect the FBI investigation of your collection to begin?  Who on earth, at any point in your future, would have any possible interest in examining your music receipts?

 

Nothing amazing about it, I feel good when I do the moral thing.

 

IMHO it's a good idea to have receipts for all copyrighted material on one's computer in case the RIAA and the FBI once again start apparently randomly suing computer owners. Just because they stopped a few years ago, doesn’t mean they won’t start up again in the future. IMHO it’s best to be prepared even if it never happens me.

 

19 hours ago, wushuliu said:

That's the thing. I mean who the hell know any of these laws other than some industry folk and er concerned audiophiles. I had to look it up. In 2004 this was a thing maybe cause Napster and Metallica blah blah blah but that's still not the same thing. Video at least has the warning every time so we all know that spiel. Maybe we should have a warning narration on every  cd or download. Maybe they should have a large warning gif or printed on the disk itself. I mean if this is so morally outrageous and or illegal I shouldn't have to dig through lol eight pages on an audiophile forum. Good Lord.

 

You could have looked on the back of a CD or inside the booklet for words “All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws.” I agree it's not quite as forceful as the FBI warnings on video tapes, DVDs, and Blu-ray discs. 

 

2 hours ago, esldude said:

So would it fix the morals and ethics to send a small fee to each artist of each CD approximating their cut if you rip CDs, keep the rips and sell the CDs?  This way artists who deserve the money get it, and greedy bastard record companies get nary a penny extra.  Typically you could send 50 cents per CD to the artist and have their end covered.  $1 per would most definitely cover the artists cut for certain. 

 

Sorry, if someone already suggested this as I didn't read all the other pages of posts.  So still illegal (in the USA), but is it now good ethically or morally?

 

If you don't want the greedy bastard record companies (i.e.: the bean counter major labels) to have your money, why do you buy their products? Why not seek out artists who record on record labels who love not only music but want music to sound it's very best. What I am talking about are audiophile recording companies who make their own recordings with loving care from the selection of microphones and their proper placement, the selection of great sounding recording spaces (concert halls, auditoriums, churches, jazz clubs, etc.) to the finished product, making no compromises along the way. Resulting in realistic natural sounding recordings, with wide dynamic range.

 

OTOH the major labels give you over-engineered recordings, highly modified with pro-tools, autotune and other devices to create artificial sounding crap that is designed for the lowest common denominator, such as cheap earbuds, thus they are compressed to hell. 

 

I believe my favorite audiophile labels deserve to be paid as well as the artists, so they can keep making the great audiophile recordings I love. Also audiophile labels pay artists a higher percentage of sales, OTOH audiophile labels have fewer sales than major labels. In short, I don't buy for the greedy bastard record companies you mentioned.

 

It seems the would is headed towards streaming instead of ownership so this problem will be solved when physical products disappear. In the streaming world one just deletes from their playlists what they don't like, no monetary loss.

[Teresa]

13 hours ago, DancingSea said:

...It would be hilarious to watch a group of 20 CA members cross the road...

 

It’s simple I will walk down to the crosswalk and push the walk button and wait for the green light.

 

12 hours ago, 4est said:

It's not the same at all. Jaywalking is a victim-less offense whereas selling off CDs and retaining the files is stealing from the artist and label.

 

12 hours ago, DancingSea said:

...And jaywalking is hardly a victimless crime.  They have those laws because the act kills people...

 

12 hours ago, 4est said:

...If a jaywalker is run over, it is their own fault for stepping into traffic...

 

Jaywalking is not a victim-less offense. A lot of pedestrians are killed in the city I live in each year, most either jaywalking or walking out into traffic while doing something else like talking or texting on a cell phone. Also, car wrecks happen as the driver tries to swerve out of the way to not hit the jaywalking pedestrian that just stepped in front of their car, sometimes they hit another car instead which can result in death. Jaywalking is illegal for a very good reason. 

 

I agree, selling off CDs and retaining the files is stealing from the artist and label.

[Teresa]

13 hours ago, DancingSea said:

...Torrents, that's a whole different beast and something very legitimate for the industry to complain about.  Music torrent sites ought to be shut down, in my opinion...

 

I agree!

 

They do shut music torrent sites down, however they reopen with a slightly different address. The problem is most of these sites are in Russia.

[Teresa]

15 hours ago, barrows said:

...I am not aware whether there is CD recycling, anyone?

 

Yes, there is: CD Recycling Center of America

[Teresa]

7 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

i doubt there is one person here that doesn't have in their possession at least one copyrighted sound track,video,picture, or movie they didn't pay for.....

 

I have two, however they are both legal:

1. A Sheffield Christmas Collection (Sheffield Lab CD) A gift from Elusive Disc included with my November 2014 order of SACDs. (it's listed on the receipt with my order)
2. The Sound of the Future: Binaural + (Chesky 24-bit 96kHz download) a legitimate free promotional sampler from HDTracks. (I printed the email receipt from HDTracks)

However, I have sinned in the past. About 7 years ago I had extreme financial problems and health issues. To keep from being homeless I became a seller on eBay beginning with my personal possessions. I sold my SACD/DVD player, my Music Hall turntable, Teac Reel to Reel, Nakamichi cassette deck and all the software. I thought I was very smart as I used the Audacity app to record my favorite SACDs and LPs at 24/96 using the tape loop "analog outs" from my preamp to the analog in on my Mac Mini. However over time, with the help of many kind people here I learned that what I did was morally wrong and illegal because I sold the discs. I have since deleted every single one of these music files, bought a SACD/Blu-ray player and spent several years trying to repurchase my favorite SACDs, as well as new recordings released since then. I have even found many of my favorite LPs reissued as SACDs or high resolution downloads.

 

All of my movies are on purchased DVDs and Blu-ray discs. I have no video on my computer.

[Teresa]

11 hours ago, stuck limo said:

 

Unsure if real or satire....

 

Very real and I apologize for my past bad deeds, if that was unclear to you. 

 

21 hours ago, DancingSea said:

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.

 

I am not a fan of the excesses of capitalism, especially crony capitalism. However until we adopt a Resource Based Economy and eliminate all money, copyright holders deserve to be paid for their work as they have to buy food, pay rent, etc.  A Resource Based Economy is a whole factor socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude.  

 

I love audiophile recording companies and many of the artists they record.  The goal of audiophile recording companies is to recreate the live event as naturally as possible. Most are recorded in acoustically good real places where music is performed, not in recording studios. I abhor the major labels who create music which to me is unnatural and unlistenable.

 

If new audiophile recordings are to be offered in the future, theft of their music is to be discouraged. I believe that the musicians, writers, and everyone involved deserve to be paid as we do live in a capilist society.