Getting rid of CD's?

[kumakuma]

21 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

Of which there seems to be a healthy contingent on CA....

 

I have to assume you're trolling here because anyone with a modicum of sense would realize that we are talking here about making sure that musicians are fairly compensated, not making the music industry oligarchy richer.

[DancingSea]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

I have to assume you're trolling here because anyone with a modicum of sense would realize that we are talking here about making sure that musicians are fairly compensated, not making the music industry oligarchy richer.

 

I am poking fun at the enthusiasm with which a contingency here is so harsh in their judgments about what constitutes piracy.   I have great empathy for the artists, and almost zero for the record labels.  I by no means support piracy, and have criticized torrent sites in this thread.

 

A guy selling off his ancient CD collection because there is no room to store it - and keeping the rips - hardly constitutes meaningful piracy in my eyes.  That scenario would never be prosecuted. 

 

The enthusiasm to condemn such small scale and utterly harmless behavior led to the poking fun about there must be quite a few record industry lobbyist/ attorneys on CA.  Its said in jest.

 

 

 

[Paul R]

18 hours ago, 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?

 

Oh my.

 

So, let me get this straight - you base your morals and ethics about this - (or everything?) - on the risk of being caught and punished for what you do? 

 

Oh my my my ... 

 

There is definitely something screwy with your logic. My wife would ask, do you feel you can morally cheat on your wife or partner if you are far enough away the chance of getting caught is very low? if you found a wallet on the street, would you take the money and drop the wallet, supposing nobody was around to see you do it? 

 

In essence, adults are generally people who have chosen to do the right thing, even when nobody is around to catch them or punish them if they do not. 

[DancingSea]

6 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Oh my.

 

So, let me get this straight - you base your morals and ethics about this - (or everything?) - on the risk of being caught and punished for what you do? 

 

 

 

I said absolutely nothing of the sort.  You are putting words in my mouth to validate you're own position.

 

Instead, I suggest you just stick to your position, make your case.  I'm all ears.

 

I do not think, on any moral level - **whether one can get caught or not** - that there's anything wrong with the OP selling off his old CD collection and doing whatever he wants with the rips.

 

The person who collected all the receipts thought it important to do so.  I doubt they just enjoy pieces of papers, thus the reason must be to be able to prove that they own every piece of music on their computer.  Thus there must be some motivation to be able to prove that.  Because no one cares about their receipts - no one -  I find the exercise meaningless.   But that's just my opinion as it pertains to me.  If they want to collect music receipts, go for it.

 

My statement about receipts has *zero* to do with the morality of the OP's intent to sell his CD's.  They are two different topics.

 

 

[Speed Racer]

24 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

I said absolutely nothing of the sort.  You are putting words in my mouth to validate you're own position.

 

Instead, I suggest you just stick to your position, make your case.  I'm all ears.

 

I do not think, on any moral level - **whether one can get caught or not** - that there's anything wrong with the OP selling off his old CD collection and doing whatever he wants with the rips.

 

The person who collected all the receipts thought it important to do so.  I doubt they just enjoy pieces of papers, thus the reason must be to be able to prove that they own every piece of music on their computer.  Thus there must be some motivation to be able to prove that.  Because no one cares about their receipts - no one -  I find the exercise meaningless.   But that's just my opinion as it pertains to me.  If they want to collect music receipts, go for it.

 

My statement about receipts has *zero* to do with the morality of the OP's intent to sell his CD's.  They are two different topics.

 

 

 

This tells me your moral compass is impossible to read. From what you have said, I do not know if I could trust your handshake or your word. What is important enough to you that doing the wrong this is morally objectionable to you? How would anyone know?

[DancingSea]

58 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

This tells me your moral compass is impossible to read. From what you have said, I do not know if I could trust your handshake or your word. What is important enough to you that doing the wrong this is morally objectionable to you? How would anyone know?

 

What a ridiculous thing to say because we have a difference of opinion about the specific terms of someone selling their old CD's.

 

I think character assassination is uncalled for.

[agladstone]

I can personally speak to @DancingSea moral compass and it is as high as you can get! He is a highly trustworthy, honest, and moral person!

[DancingSea]

1 minute ago, agladstone said:

I can personally speak to @DancingSea moral compass and it is as high as you can get! He is a highly trustworthy, honest, and moral person!

 

Thanks Allen!  $20 bill is in the mail....

[Speed Racer]

6 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

What a ridiculous thing to say because we have a difference of opinion about the specific terms of someone selling their old CD's.

 

I think character assassination is uncalled for.

 

Character assassination? I am just going by your statements. I can't tell what causes a blip on your moral radar and what doesn't. Is it the chance of getting caught? It's quite unclear.

[DancingSea]

28 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Character assassination? I am just going by your statements. I can't tell what causes a blip on your moral radar and what doesn't. Is it the chance of getting caught? It's quite unclear.

 

As I wrote previously, the chance of getting caught is not the issue.  

 

Its absurd to attempt to conclude another's universal moral radar over one opinion about some guy selling his used CD's.

[Speed Racer]

7 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

As I wrote previously, the chance of getting caught is not the issue.  

 

Its absurd to attempt to conclude another's universal moral radar over one opinion about some guy selling his used CD's.

 

That's my point. I have no idea what causes a blip. So far, all you have done argue against everything people have listed here as being morally objectionable. It appears it's okay pirate CDs. Where do you draw a line?

[DancingSea]

Just now, Speed Racer said:

 

That's my point. I have no idea what causes a blip. So far, all you have done argue against everything people have listed here as being morally objectionable. It appears it's okay pirate CDs. Where do you draw a line?

 

Oy vey.  Enough.  Have a good night.  I cannot dignify this with a counter point, its beneath us both....

[esldude]

Hate to see a long and near meaningless thread close down after it should have concluded on the first page.

 

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?

[DancingSea]

32 minutes ago, esldude said:

Hate to see a long and near meaningless thread close down after it should have concluded on the first page.

 

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?

 

Good idea.  Also need to figure in depreciation for the physical CD.  A 20 year old CD would be worth less than a 2 year old CD....

[foodfiend]

17 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

Good idea.  Also need to figure in depreciation for the physical CD.  A 20 year old CD would be worth less than a 2 year old CD....

Then again, said CD could be very rare and out-of-print. In which case, the 20 year old CD would be worth much more.

[esldude]

54 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

Good idea.  Also need to figure in depreciation for the physical CD.  A 20 year old CD would be worth less than a 2 year old CD....

Unless physically damaged, which isn't the musicians fault, unlike LPs that wear out from playing, I don't see much physical depreciation.  Also if you wanted the right to keep playing the music, that right doesn't depreciate.  So, no, depreciation doesn't fit.  And as foodfiend pointed out, some CDs appreciate.  I have a few purchased for $15 that would go for $100 to $200. 

[mjb]

1 hour ago, DancingSea said:

 

Good idea.  Also need to figure in depreciation for the physical CD.  A 20 year old CD would be worth less than a 2 year old CD....

 

Thats not always true. Some CD's are very hard to find these days, and new remastered versions that squash the dynamic range (loudness wars) now make many original's highly sought after.

[esldude]

In addition to paying only the artists, you could say promoters already promoted, your 2nd hand deal didn't involve them.  Distributors already distributed, you are now doing the distribution so they don't get a cut.  The producers already produced so nothing earned by them in a second hand sale.  But the artist retains his rights beyond these people in all forms.  So paying the artist yes, everyone else, they didn't do anything for second hand sales to earn it.

[stuck limo]

So, just going on the idea here that digital files should be discarded after CDs are sold because it enables you to listen to them [and that's a no-no]....does that mean I should wipe songs from my memory after I sell the CDs? Should I not sing them or listen to them in my mind/imagination because the artist is not being paid? Am I morally wrong here and unethical to memorize music notes and song lyrics and melodies and vocals? 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, stuck_limo said:

So, just going on the idea here that digital files should be discarded after CDs are sold because it enables you to listen to them [and that's a no-no]....does that mean I should wipe songs from my memory after I sell the CDs? Should I not sing them or listen to them in my mind/imagination because the artist is not being paid? Am I morally wrong here and unethical to memorize music notes and song lyrics and melodies and vocals? 

This will become a much stickier question in the future.

 

Right now you are not legally or morally obligated to perform a memory wipe on yourself.  Just your artificial devices.

 

However, in the future we may augment human memory artificially.  Then?  The supreme court will have to decide if wiping artificial human memory of copyrighted material is necessary.  Or if you'll just have to pay a small fee for keeping that memory.  Hey, maybe we'll have Tidal, only for all human memories. 

[mjb]

[DancingSea]

1 hour ago, foodfiend said:

Then again, said CD could be very rare and out-of-print. In which case, the 20 year old CD would be worth much more.

 

Ok, fair enough.  Let's rephrase.  Old CD's "could" be subject to depreciation.  There are hundreds of thousands of CD's that sold for $15 that used, would be worth a dollar or two.....  and yes, a much smaller percentage could in fact appreciate in value....

[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.