Not sure I grasp the legal/moral view some are offering here. It's not illegal to sell or buy used CDs (or LPs, etc.). It's not illegal to make copies for your own personal use. People have always bought music, new or used, made recordings and resold the originals. The net effect is the same as if you were to buy a CD new and then turn around and sell it without listening or recording it. It puts the used recording on the resale market, potentially depriving the artist of a new sale. Makes no difference if you record it or not, as long as you're not selling copies. If you're against this, then you're against the selling and buying of secondhand music at all (or anything else with a current patent or copyright for that matter). You think it's immoral, once someone has bought a new CD, or book, etc., for them to ever sell or give it away, maybe even to loan it out. They'd have to destroy it if they didn't want it anymore, so as not to potentially deprive the copyright holder of a new sale. |
Pawlowski: Not sure I understand why, if demand for new CD's was to increase, the price would go down? Nevermind.
Edesilva: Can't see what liking the music or not has to do with anything. That it's somehow less moral if you like the music, but not if you don't? Doesn't work for me. Anyway, there is a difference between reselling one original CD and making copies to sell: In the former case, there will not be more CDs on the market than were originally produced. |
Whether that right (to buy, copy, sell the original and retain the copy) exists or not, or whether it's even been addressed or determined in the law, there is still a fundamental practical difference between the two scenarios (selling the copy or selling the original) in the real world: you can only sell an original once, but you can make and sell an unlimited number of copies. The one copy/one original analogy might hold, but the industry has never been demonstrably concerned about only one, physical copy, or even a few, given to friends or family (which might ultimately help the artist more than hurt). It's the potentially unlimited number of copies presented by digital technology, available from strangers without needing to leave the house or acquire a physical object, that's made them take action. This doesn't necessarily settle the ethical or legal questions, but it is a fact. |
"You buy the CD, don't make a copy because you don't like it, and resell it. The artist still gets royalties on all 1,000, because you aren't one of the 1,000 who would pay for the album. No harm" Huh? The first clause of your first sentence stipulates "You buy the CD", but you wind up saying "You aren't one...who would pay for the album." You lost me dude. Here's the one and only difference that matters today that didn't come into play in yesteryear: People give music away by the hundreds and thousands to strangers they never met. I am ethically opposed to file sharing like that. For a valid comparison with 20 years ago, you'd have to imagine a scenario where someone buys a record, duplicates thousands of copies on cassette, and then sets up tables at downtown intersections throughout the country with signs saying "free, take one or as many as you like". For obvious reasons (not ethical ones) that didn't happen then, but the equivalent can and does happen now. |
There is absolutely no difference whether you keep the original and distribute the copy or keep the copy and distribute the original Well, there is a difference with music CDs, especially for collectors and audiophiles. If you keep only the copy and sell or give away the original, you'll lose the original disk, original inserts, and also some sonic fidelity. That these things seem to be rapidly becoming relics of an age past probably will only make them more valuable at some point in the future. And it's not at all clear to me that the law, even if it is "outdated" in some respects, does not make or imply this same distinction, probably for those same reasons. Personally, I doubt that if I ever rip all my CD's I'll want to get rid of the originals. Anyway Herman, so what do you think you're going to do at this point? |
The statement I agree with most since my last post was made by Meisterkleef: "If there were no such thing as file sharing, I doubt this issue would even be on the radar screen." I'm kinda surprised by the number of people who are so sincerely concerned about this, to the point of declaring they haven't bought used music since they were starving students. For a vinyl record collector like me, this is almost inconceivably ludicrous -- there are literally tens of thousands of records from the past that are unavailable any other way. Besides which, I'm a firm believer that all publicity is good publicity when it comes to sales, and that limited dissemination beyond one's own ears of music that one has bought will ultimately help, not hurt, the artist. If I throw a party and spin records at it, BMI and ASCAP will never hear from me, but someone in attendance might be inspired to go out and buy something I played. If I burn a compilation CD-R and give copies to friends, same deal. And who here hasn't bought recorded music used and as a result been inspired to buy more from that artist new, or go see them in concert? Most of the hypotheticals described above are too extreme to reflect reality. The only real exception is file-sharing, which is extreme. Do the moral worriers here also disapprove of libraries? Because of digital, we seem to be hand-wringing our way toward rewriting the history of intellectual property in Western civilization... |
FWIW, the copyright law article that appeared in the Sept. '05 Stereophile says this about fair use under the Audio Home Recording Act of '92: "Title 17's 'First Sale' provision is intended to limit the copyright holder's control over the disposition of the protected work to the first sale. That is, once one buys a painting, a book, a CD, or another protected work, the purchaser gains the right to sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of the work. If the work is sold to another, that individual then gains the right to dispose of the work, and so on.
"There are some important caveats to the First Sale provision. First, it does not apply to a copy the purchaser makes. For example, if one purchases a CD and then makes a copy (or copies), as permitted by the AHRA, one cannot give away or sell the copies. Second, there need not be any money exchanged for a copyright to be infringed. For example, if one were to copy a book in its entirety and give the copy to a friend as a gift, one would most likely have committed an act of infringement. Ditto for a CD. In other words, if you have ever burned a CD for friend, you have broken the law. While the recording studios [sic -- author probably meant record labels] are not thrilled by this practice, they have tended to turn a blind eye to it. But now it's time to turn to the heart of the matter.
What keeps the record labels up at night is the downloading and sharing of MP3 files...it is an act of copyright infringement to share copyright-protected music over a peer-to-peer network without the copyright holder's permission." As you can see, the question of whether the owner of a copyright-protected work can sell the work but retain copies they've made is not directly addressed. Whether this is the fault of the article, or the law, I don't know. (The article also notes that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act prohibits bypassing copy-protection in order to make copies, but that this is a separate violation and not copyright infringement per se.) If this is a complete representation of the law on the matter, then it seems to me you'd have to make the argument that selling the work while retaining a copy amounts to illegally "giving" or "selling" the copy to yourself for it qualify as a violation, a bit of a logical contortion but then what are lawyers for? I think the main point though is that whatever the law says or appears to say, or doesn't say, law enforcement and copyright holders clearly have never been concerned with situations like Herman's. P2P file-sharing is the issue. |
You keep saying "they got the money for the CD I bought," and think that justifies your actions Never said that. neither the record company nor the artist got the money from the sale they didn't make--the sale that they should have made but for the fact that you pre-empted them by selling yours I specifically acknowledged this (putting aside caveats about whether new vs. used sales is really a zero-sum game), but noted that is perfectly legal and expected, and always has been. This is not an indictment of resale--selling it without keeping a copy. There you aren't depriving them of a sale... Yes you are (potentially -- same caveat as above). ...because you are not a consumer who is willing to pay for what you got The only way you don't pay is if you buy it used and sell it used for the same amount. That's legal, but doesn't compensate the artist whether you keep a copy or not. The other recurring thing I see in this thread is people's view that "heck, I'm just one person, this isn't my problem, my contribution to the situation is negligible." Again, it's legal as long as you're not file-sharing or otherwise giving away or selling copies. And again, I don't think it's so simple -- wider dissemination, even uncompensated, can help the artist, not just hurt them. It's not that "I'm just one person" which is relevent -- it's that I'm not making more than one or a few copies, rather than thousands. There is a difference, and the former has always gone on, and may benefit artists in the final analysis. |
Prpixel: Quite a group of friends there ;^) Herman: For me the simple test is what would you consider fair if you were on the other side of the fence? I find it hard to believe you could support your position if you made your living from your music. The truth is I know several people who make (or try to make) their primary living from music, receive checks from BMI/ASCAP, and do exactly the kinds of things most people do when it comes to copying and circulating copyrighted recorded music on a limited basis (I don't know, however, what their file-sharing stances or habits are). And as I've said repeatedly, I don't think this question represents a zero-sum game, or that practices like this might not help, rather than harm, artists in the big picture. But I agree with your decision to keep your disks. (As for the sonic aspect, the only hard-disk-based device that's been hooked-up to my system, an Alesis MasterLink recorder/burner, does not sound quite as good feeding my DAC from its hard-drive as the same material sounds played from the CD via my Theta transport. And all CD-R's burned on several devices and brands of blanks have never sounded as good as the originals.) |
Yes Herman, but at least she'll be dead before you ;^) |
Hey, at least people have stopped posting inviting you to please send them your orphaned CDs ;^) |
If you carry the conservative argument to its logical limit, we should not be able to gain the benefit of enjoyment of any copyrighted music without paying for it directly or indirectly. Are the kids in the park break-dancing to a boombox and encircled by a crowd of enjoying onlookers while passing the hat illegally charging for a public performance without compensating the artist? You could make that argument. And what about taping off the radio, something that was pretty common in days of yore (and some of us still do on occassion)? Is not the internet just the new radio?
I think one of the problems with the strict constructionist view is that it is historically, prehistorically, and perhaps even genetically disconnected from the ways which people traditionally invent, perform, propagate, receive and employ music. Music is tens of thousands of years old and universal, while copyright law and recorded sound are fairly new developments and culture-specific. Prior to the last few hundred years, all music was "folk" music, and until very recently most music still was. Perhaps our natural heritage as human beings is part of the reason we might find it understandably difficult not to consider the music we love to be "ours" in some deeper way, no matter who wrote it or how much we respect the concept of intellectual property rights in the abstract. That might sound like a rationalization, but I think it correlates strongly with reality. I do believe that once an artist puts a work out into the world, it ceases to be theirs in many ways -- especially if it is successful -- and that this is an integral part of both the bargain and the attraction which comes with being recognized for one's work. |
Onhwy61: Based on my experience with him on Audiogon over the years, IMO Herman wouldn't post a troll anymore than you or I would. Oftentimes discussing and writing about stuff also serves as a way to think it through for yourself -- at least that's what I've found. |
My own belief is that the issue of massive, free digital distribution and copying is unsolvable according to the traditional models. I think artists will have to move to an "honor system" of online donations -- tips, really, like busking all over again -- for the music of theirs that people enjoy after taking it for free off the net. This implies that artists should just go ahead and provide said music for free (or nominally low cost) over the net, with the full expectation that it will propagate in the way that is now widely considered to be a problem (and illegal). The first "difficulty" with this is that it would largely cut out the labels (cry me a river). I don't know what artists actually get paid these days per album sold -- a couple of bucks? Simply go online and give an artist whose songs you've downloaded an album's worth of $2 directly. When the legacy need for physical media and packaging finally fades away (except for a niche enthusiast market), overhead will be much lower -- basically just creating and maintaining a website, while ever more of today's popular music seems to be made in low cost "project studios" anyway. Let videos die -- MTV doesn't show them anymore, and they were never good for the music, just an expense which gave the labels more control. A new model of "record labels" will probably thrive in this environment, ones which operate primarily through their websites and function much more like the numerous independents of yore than the humongous conglomerates of today, being portals catering to defined tastes and genres. There may be considerably less concentrated money in this model, but it will be less dysfunctional from both the artistic and business standpoints. The "major labels" can revert to just doing a similar business with their back catalogs and quit trying to shove their present day mass-produced crap down our collective throats, they'll be much less top-heavy for the change. Government action may help facilitate the transition, by breaking up monopolies both among the major labels and also in radio station ownership, but if that never happens, tech and market forces (read: the internet, wireless and satellite, and the existence of better options content-wise) will eventually accomplish it for us. |
