Getting rid of CD's?

[wushuliu]

8 pages on this. Really?

[Speed Racer]

1 minute ago, wushuliu said:

8 pages on this. Really?

 

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.

[DancingSea]

1 hour 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.

 

Yes, that is the fundamentalist approach.  Which is perfectly ok... for you.

 

I have not purchased CD's in nearly 10 years.  I have my entire 20 year old collection as a backup for the ripped files.  I have no interest in selling them.

 

However, if one day I did want to sell them - I would do it freely.  And I would 100% retain all the ripped files.  And have zero moral or legal concern in doing so.  To me, this is all much ado about nothing.

 

Thus please commence the shaking and shivering over thus happily stated position. 

[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.

[DancingSea]

53 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

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.

 

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?

[Jud]

18 hours ago, stuck_limo said:

On a side note, should buying used CDs be illegal? I've seen it claimed amongst music fans that the used market shouldn't exist because it's morally/ethically/financially wrong. Garth Brooks fought against the used market as well. Should one refrain from buying CDs as it enables possible illegal/unethical behavior [by the previous owners]?  

 

The law in the US is the so-called "first sale doctrine," which applies to physical CDs/SACDs, but not the files ripped from them.  It's an economic judgment call that evolved over the years in US law (and was eventually codified in the statute) balancing the rights of the copyright holder against those of the initial purchaser.

[Jud]

20 hours ago, Teresa said:

SACD, DVD and Blu-ray all have copy protection and it is currently illegal to defeat copy protection even for personal use.

 

There's a procedure in the US to seek to protect a type of conduct that is currently potentially illegal under the copyright laws but which perhaps should not be, which is to ask for a "safe harbor" for that conduct from the Copyright Office.  The Copyright Office annually asks for submissions of proposed safe harbors.  I've occasionally thought this personal "format shifting," which to me is analogous to the legal "time shifting" many of us do with DVRs, would make a good subject for a safe harbor request.

[wushuliu]

8 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.

 

Lol. Then we are awash in a sea of loose morals. How can all these people live with themselves!

[wushuliu]

4 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?

 

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.

[wushuliu]

7 hours ago, DancingSea said:

 

Yes, that is the fundamentalist approach.  Which is perfectly ok... for you.

 

I have not purchased CD's in nearly 10 years.  I have my entire 20 year old collection as a backup for the ripped files.  I have no interest in selling them.

 

However, if one day I did want to sell them - I would do it freely.  And I would 100% retain all the ripped files.  And have zero moral or legal concern in doing so.  To me, this is all much ado about nothing.

 

Thus please commence the shaking and shivering over thus happily stated position. 

 

The horror.

The horror.

[DancingSea]

I should explain, lest anyone here gain an undo impression about my morals - that I live on a tropical island in the middle of the Pacific.  The jaywalking opportunities are very limited on Maui.  I only find myself in such a position a few times a year.  But once the sign says "don't walk", and there's no traffic, I do make quick work of breaking the law.

 

If possible, I would jaywalk more often.

 

Just sayin'  

[Speed Racer]

@DancingSea,

 

Let's say you made your living on Maui selling CDs of whale songs your recorded while diving. The equipment used to make these recordings cost you a pretty penny.

 

What would your view be of someone in a Tour group buying your CD, ripping it to his computer, and selling the CD to someone else in the Tour group? Assume this repeated itself until the CD changed hands 10 times.

 

Now, 11 people have your music and you have only one sale.

 

Let's say the CD sells for $10. Your sales could have been $110 but were only $10.

 

But that's okay, right?

[wushuliu]

5 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

@DancingSea,

 

Let's say you made your living on Maui selling CDs of whale songs your recorded while diving. The equipment used to make these recordings cost you a pretty penny.

 

What would your view be of someone in a Tour group buying your CD, ripping it to his computer, and selling the CD to someone else in the Tour group? Assume this repeated itself until the CD changed hands 10 times.

 

Now, 11 people have your music and you have only one sale.

 

Let's say the CD sells for $10. Your sales could have been $110 but were only $10.

 

But that's okay, right?

 

Well let's be real. No one's going to buy a used CD for $10. You're applying 20th Century mindset to 21st century applications. Let's be more realistic and say the ripper sells for the CD for $5, and if the CD is really popular then Dancing would have to look at the lost revenue as a loss leader that help spread the word and music, resulting in increased retail sales. Let's not pretend consumer psychology isn't a huge factor here. This is a forum for a website that reviews five figure gear FFS. For every person willing to buy the used, there will be someone willing to shell out full retail brand new direct from the artist.

 

Again, it's not like there's some giant warning saying hey don't rip this and sell. EXPLICIT LANGUAGE, yeah. So maybe there should be more outrage why explicit language takes precedence over copying/selling rights and laws. Maybe there should be more concern for how the industry educates and what they choose to educate regarding laws and rights than asking individuals how toasty they like their fire with their brimstone for ripping cds.

 

 

 

 

 

[DancingSea]

33 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

@DancingSea,

 

Let's say you made your living on Maui selling CDs of whale songs your recorded while diving. The equipment used to make these recordings cost you a pretty penny.

 

What would your view be of someone in a Tour group buying your CD, ripping it to his computer, and selling the CD to someone else in the Tour group? Assume this repeated itself until the CD changed hands 10 times.

 

Now, 11 people have your music and you have only one sale.

 

Let's say the CD sells for $10. Your sales could have been $110 but were only $10.

 

But that's okay, right?

 

It would be hilarious to watch a group of 20 CA members cross the road.  Some would just walk across, jaywalking or not.  Apparently, a very large number would remain on the street corner debating the pros and cons, and under what conditions, its ok to cross the road.  We'd have laws printed out, plenty of diagrams and arguments.  

 

Even a number of chickens would have crossed the road back and forth as we debated.  Which would lead us to debating just why the chicken crossed the road.  The light would change multiple times as things were discussed, day turns to night - and in the spirit of debating the merits of jaywalking, we'd all get a ticket for loitering.

 

Oy vey.

 

My comments thus far have been limited to the scenario described by the OP.  He has an old, huge collection of CD's that he can no longer store.  To me, if he wants to sell them off for a few dollars per CD and keep the rips - go for it.  For me, this is not pirating.

 

If someone made a business out of buying CD's and selling the rips, that would be pirating.  I could not imagine a scenario in this day and age where *any* CD, even of the Rolling Stones, would be passed around through 11 hands with each doing rips.  Why?  Because those same 11 people can go to a torrent site and download the same album for free.  Why pay for the CD?  I'm not condoning that action, just stating the obvious.  Or Person A could just email Person B the ripped files.

 

Its as if you guys are stuck in the year 2000.  CD's are dinosaurs!

 

I cannot imagine buying CD's, ripping it, and selling the CD poses any threat to the recording industry.  

 

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.

 

In the larger scheme of things, the Grateful Dead - completely by accident - became one of the, if not the, most successful touring act in history by allowing the music to be traded freely.  As Martin Scorcese's recent movie attests, the Grateful Dead would not have exploded to filling football stadiums in the late 80's without this free flow of recorded music.  Without all those bootlegs running around, they would've still been playing 4,000 seat venues.  Free music translated into massive cash.

 

Thus there is precedence for the financial success of giving away music.  SoundCloud and BandCamp do a version of this, allowing you to listen online before purchase.

 

Chance The Rapper has freely given his music away, shunning the recording industry.  All to great success.

 

Back to my hypothetical whale recordings.  Knowing its not likely to ever been a large commercial success.  I'd much rather it go viral for free and reach a huge audience, than be limited to a handful of tourists on Maui.  With it going viral, I could sell out basketball arenas and make money touring - a 14 night Madison Square Garden Whale Song Residency, yeah baby.

 

Long story short, there are many different possible scenarios.  Ultimately, we must each decide where our comfort level resides.  

 

 

 

 

[wushuliu]

2 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

It would be hilarious to watch a group of 20 CA members cross the road.  Some would just walk across, jaywalking or not.  Apparently, a very large number would remain on the street corner debating the pros and cons, and under what conditions, its ok to cross the road.  We'd have laws printed out, plenty of diagrams and arguments.  They light would change multiple times as things were discussed, day turns to night - and in the spirit of debating the merits of jaywalking, we'd all get a ticket for loitering.

 

Lol +100000

[4est]

6 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

It would be hilarious to watch a group of 20 CA members cross the road.  Some would just walk across, jaywalking or not.  Apparently, a very large number would remain on the street corner debating the pros and cons, and under what conditions, its ok to cross the road.  We'd have laws printed out, plenty of diagrams and arguments.  They light would change multiple times as things were discussed, day turns to night - and in the spirit of debating the merits of jaywalking, we'd all get a ticket for loitering.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[DancingSea]

8 minutes 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.

 

I fully respect your fundamentalist, broad stroke opinion.  But respectfully disagree that all scenarios fall under that narrow umbrella.

 

And jaywalking is hardly a victimless crime.  They have those laws because the act kills people.  Jaywalking is potentially far more serious than selling used CD's at a garage sale.

 

There it is, another chicken just crossed the road...

 

[Ralf11]

8 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

... Jaywalking is far more serious than selling used CD's at a garage sale.

 

 

 

not to record industry lobbyists

[foodfiend]

18 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

Back to my hypothetical whale recordings.  Knowing its not likely to ever been a large commercial success.  I'd much rather it go viral for free and reach a huge audience, than be limited to a handful of tourists on Maui.  With it going viral, I could sell out basketball arenas and make money touring - a 14 night Madison Square Garden Whale Song Residency, yeah baby.

Talking about whale songs... If they get so popular, there will be a debate as to whether you have any claim to the copyright, since you did not "sing" the whale song. Kind of like the whole debacle over the picture of the monkey who used a photographer's camera to take itself...

[DancingSea]

3 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

Talking about whale songs... If they get so popular, there will be a debate as to whether you have any claim to the copyright, since you did not "sing" the whale song. Kind of like the whole debacle over the picture of the monkey who used a photographer's camera to take itself...

 

Yes, the whale lobby are bastards!

[4est]

21 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

I fully respect your fundamentalist, broad stroke opinion.  But respectfully disagree that all scenarios fall under that narrow umbrella.

 

And jaywalking is hardly a victimless crime.  They have those laws because the act kills people.  Jaywalking is potentially far more serious than selling used CD's at a garage sale.

 

There it is, another chicken just crossed the road...

 

Your logic is screwy IMO, although I agree on the severity assessment. If a jaywalker is run over, it is their own fault for stepping into traffic, whereas selling your CDs is stealing- plain and simple. I am not saying that I wouldn't do either, but the distinction seems clear to me.

[wushuliu]

Ok all this talk is great but... Where are the measurements?

[DancingSea]

25 minutes ago, 4est said:

Your logic is screwy IMO, although I agree on the severity assessment. If a jaywalker is run over, it is their own fault for stepping into traffic, whereas selling your CDs is stealing- plain and simple. I am not saying that I wouldn't do either, but the distinction seems clear to me.

 

Its more accurate to say that you and I see the issue differently. 

 

A jaywalker could cause a car to swerve, running into another car, and killing 8 people.  And the jaywalker survives.  The driver could be drunk.

 

This is why we have a court system.  Every situation is different.  Yes, there are laws, but a judge oversees the implementation of those laws.  The outcomes are not always the same, even for the exact same scenario.

 

Its well documented that under the exact same charges, an offender with a full on legal team will get more "justice" than someone with a public defender.

 

Which is to say, everything is not black and white.  There can be many mitigating factors, and multiple interpretations and implementations of those laws.

[Don Hills]

2 hours ago, 4est said:

... selling your CDs is stealing- plain and simple. ...

 

You're allowed to sell your CDs. (But of course you're not allowed to keep copies of them, which I believe is what you meant.) 

 

The copyright holders would have you believe that copying a CD is theft. It's not. It's copyright infringement. Different offences prosecuted under different laws.

[DancingSea]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

not to record industry lobbyists

 

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