Getting rid of CD's?

[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.

[DancingSea]

1 hour ago, Teresa said:

 

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 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.

[foodfiend]

@paul_riordan Which album(s) did you buy? I have bought everything released so far, including the German albums.

[foodfiend]

14 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 freely admit that I have copyrighted music that I didn't pay for. There is lots of free copyright music available, including samplers, and freebies from magazine subscriptions, etc.

[foodfiend]

@Teresa Thanks for all the sharing of your journey with your music collection. I am glad that you are in a much better position now, and that you can once again collect the music you love.

[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.

 

 

[DancingSea]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

Such an inquiry could go a long ways towards explaining not only different views on CD copyright, but extend to politics, religion and everything else that can be so divisive.  Understanding less of what we disagree on, and more about why we disagree - to create a more empathic and less argumentative dialog  - strikes me as a key to inner and world peace.

 

No judgment.  Just exploration

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 hours ago, paul_riordan said:

I actually bought the Peter Gabriel vinyl in order to get the high resolution downloads as they are not available elsewhere... One day I will get my turntable setup and listen to some of the vinyl I have bought.... I think it must be at least 15 years since I actually listened to vinyl...

 

I'm willing to bet the vinyl was created from the high resolution digital files. 

[Ralf11]

it is about property rights - specifically, intellectual property

 

dancisea, at least some Native Americans, plains Indian tribes, recognized intellectual property - anthropologists have found that individual warriors had specific marks (trademarks??) which they placed on their robes, carved into objects and teepees and no one else was allowed to use those marks

 

personal property is almost universally recognized among humans, and many animals

 

territorial property rights are found in humans and all animals where the benefits of holding a territory are worth the costs (e.g. birds)

[paul_riordan]

3 hours ago, foodfiend said:

@paul_riordan Which album(s) did you buy? I have bought everything released so far, including the German albums.

@foodfiendLike you, all of them ! I already had the German albums on CD and enjoy listening to them very much....

[paul_riordan]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'm willing to bet the vinyl was created from the high resolution digital files. 

You are probably right....

[stuck limo]

11 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

However, I have sinned in the past. 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.

 

Unsure if real or satire....

[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.

 

[Bystander]

On 7/30/2017 at 6:23 AM, sdolezalek said:

Simple question: If you destroy or give away the CD's, how could you ever prove that you have a valid license to the digital copies you kept of those CD's?   

 I don't see why I would ever have to prove that to anybody.That's such a ridiculous notion to me, to have to hold on to CDs just so I can point to them when someone decides to check up on the legality of the files stored on my PC. I wouldn't want to live in that mindset.

[mjb]

When I buy a download, the only 'proof of purchase' I have is a PayPal receipt... I don't really expect anyone to knock on my door demanding to see it, and the purchased files don't look any different to my CD rips.

[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.

[Bystander]

On 8/23/2017 at 8:42 AM, paul_riordan said:

I actually bought the Peter Gabriel vinyl in order to get the high resolution downloads as they are not available elsewhere... One day I will get my turntable setup and listen to some of the vinyl I have bought.... I think it must be at least 15 years since I actually listened to vinyl...

Do it! I listen to computer audio most of the time and enjoy both its convenience and sound quality. But there's still something that I also love about vinyl. I don't really think it sounds better, although certainly different and often pleasant, but it somehow makes me listen better / more attentively and yet relaxed when I put one on. Seems to help put me more in the mindset of attending a performance, despite or maybe because of the format's inherent limitations.

[bellhead]

How do those who hold on to their CDs (for any reason) store them? Do you use a binder or anything that takes up less room than the original jewel cases? Thanks.

 

What about SACDs or special redbook pressings?

[stuck limo]

2 hours ago, bellhead said:

How do those who hold on to their CDs (for any reason) store them? Do you use a binder or anything that takes up less room than the original jewel cases? Thanks.

 

What about SACDs or special redbook pressings?

 

I use Jazz Loft sleeves:  http://www.spacesavingsleeves.com/

 

They're amazing and work perfectly. They save so much space it's incredible.

 

 

[paul_riordan]

4 hours ago, bellhead said:

How do those who hold on to their CDs (for any reason) store them? Do you use a binder or anything that takes up less room than the original jewel cases? Thanks.

 

What about SACDs or special redbook pressings?

I use these http://www.reallyusefulproducts.co.uk/uk/html/onlineshop/rub/b18_0litre.php

So no, they do not take up less space but they are now in the garage. 

[glider]

3 hours ago, paul_riordan said:

How do those who hold on to their CDs (for any reason) store them? Do you use a binder or anything that takes up less room than the original jewel cases? Thanks.

 

I've always been a fan of PrintFile products for archiving pretty much any type of media:

 

http://www.printfile.com/cd-pages.aspx

[bellhead]

Thanks for those ideas paul r. and glider. Those are new to me and I'll look into them. Cheers.

[Ticktocktyler]

On 7/30/2017 at 0:45 AM, Ralf11 said:

In the US legally you don't own the music.  AFAIK, he does own it if in the EU and many other places.

 

As for ethics, send the artist 2 or 3 cents and pay the rest to the recording company.

Exactly. Ask Fats Domino about ethics. Ask many latter day musicians about ethics. Ask them why they started their own record labels once their contracts with Big Rec expired. Record companies have NO qualms biting the hands that feed them. I know I don't own the music that is on a given disc. But I own the disc it's on. Maybe I should be charging rent to these criminals to keep their digital info on my nice shiny aluminum and plastic discs. Squatters!

 

[Ralf11]

I like to buy direct from the artist's web site - guess where the $$ go?

 

 

(of course, that is only for the CDs I haven't borrowed from the library)