What to do with 1,200 CDs I don't need

Highway 61, you wore me out yesterday with your dust storm of what-if scenarios but I will try one more time to convince you that buying a CD, making and retaining a copy for your personal use, and then selling the original is illegal. Forget about whether or not you lose it or how many people are in your family.

My whole position depends entirely on the fact that it is illegal to sell copies. If you feel that it is legal to buy and sell copies then don't bother to read any further.

Scenario 1: You buy a new CD for $15, make a copy to keep for your use, and sell the original to your friend for $10.

Scenario 2: Your friend buys a new CD for $15, sells you a copy to use for $5, and he keeps the original. This is clearly illegal if you agree that selling copies is illegal.

The end result is exactly the same. In both cases your friend has the original and is out $10 while you have a copy and are out $5. How can one be legal and the other not if the end result is exactly the same?

It doesn't matter if you murder your wife or you pay somebody to murder your wife, if you get caught you are going to fry.

There's a new DMCA Bill coming up for vote soon. This one makes even talking about circumventing copy protection a crime. In addition, the language is so overly broad, that it actually makes any device that can be used to circumvent copy protection illegal. So, I guess that it would make personal computers illegal. You have to love it when the RIAA and the music labels write laws.

Yes Herman, but at least she'll be dead before you ;^)

Herman, it is clearly illegal to make a copy of copyrighted material and then to sell that copy. There is no dispute whatsoever about that issue. Making a copy and selling the original is open to debate. On the surface both scenarios may have the same end result, but legally they are quite distinct. The principle of first sale permits a buyer of copyrighted material to resell a legally purchased copy (the original). The fair use clause allows someone to legally make a copy of copyrighted material they have legally purchased. Both are well established legal doctrines. Add them together and I believe a consumer has the right to purchase, copy and resell (the original).

My example about my family is not off-base. It's a very real example of how music is used within a household. It's driving the RIAA nuts.

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.