On the relative ethics and economics of used CD sales and cd burning

[marcello]

I still fail to see the difference.

Well, once difference is that the poor schmuck who put all of blood, and money to owning a record store that stocks jazz made a couple of dollars!

[Chuck Nessa]

I still fail to see the difference.

Undoubtedly more failures to come.

[J Larsen]

If I'm burning a CD for a friend, then the artist got paid when I bought MY original copy. You are assuming that I didn't pay for the disc from which I am copying.

But now your friend is getting an illegal copy of that music, for which the artists etc received no compensation. Your original copy is fine and legitimate. Don't you get that?

From the artist's perspective, how is this different from a used CD sale?

Guy

My point exactly, thank you. In both cases, the artist was compensated once, when the original copy was sold new. In both cases, the music is passed on to another listener without compensation to the artist (or other copyright holders). If you object to burning on ethical grounds, you must also object to the buying/selling of used CDs.

I disagree. In the case of burning a cd, you have created a new copy of that music for which the artist/producer etc has never been paid what's due. 2 copies of the music, artist paid once.

There is a difference between that and the used cd, which DID pay whatever money was due. 1 copy of music, artist paid once.

Again, the end result is identical: Two owners, artist paid once. In the case of the used CD, it's only one owner at a time. In the case of the burn, you have two owners at the same time. How does the first instance make the artist any richer?

I guess it's kind of cheesy to quote myself, but I still haven't seen anyone counter this:

Quick hypothetical example: You want to buy a cd, which I happen to own. You are holding out for a cheap copy (used/promo/whatever). I burn it for you, and you decide having the cdr is good enough for you. You are now out of the market for a cheap copy, so you don't pick up the used copy that turns up in your local shop next week. Someone else walks into the store, meaning to but the cd whether new or used, sees the used copy, and makes the purchase. If you had bought the used copy, they would have bought the new copy. The artist is now deprived of their 75 cent royalty.

I've seen this play out with my own eyes.

[Alexander]

Another thought: Home taping has been going on for decades. I used to make tape copies of my parent's LPs to listen to on my Walkman when I went to summer camp. Later, when I went to college, I made tape copies of their LPs to take with me. Still later on, when I bought a CD player, I bought CD copies of most - if not all - of those albums.

When I was in high school, my friends and I make copies of our tapes for one another. Again, I regarded the tapes as a "temporary fix." It allowed me to get into an album I didn't have the money to buy for myself. When I got older, and I got some cash, I "upgraded" by purchasing the tapes I had copies of from my friends.

Later on, when I got a CD burner, my friends and I continued our practice of making copies for one another.

Now, the whole time I was making tapes from my parents' LPs and my friends casettes, nobody argued about the ethics of such a practice. I was generally understood that, yes, this was technically illegal but that the end product of home taping would never actually replace an LP or a commerical tape. It was an *inferior* product, only to be endured as long as one didn't have the scratch to buy the "real thing." For the most part, that's exactly the case with CD burns. I regard them as inferior. Yes, the sound quality is generally undiminished (unlike the practice of making tape copies, which reduces the sound quality each time a copy is made) and yes, I can go online and get the cover art. But I know that CD-Rs don't last forever. They degrade at a much faster rate than real CDs (I've never had a commercial CD crap out on me, but I've had to burn new copies of CD-Rs once they start sounding like a bowl of Rice Krispies). I also want to have lyrics and liner notes, which I can only get by buying the real thing. Not only have I purchased commerical copies of CDs I've gotten off of friends as burns, I've even bought commercial CDs of album's I've PURCHASED on iTunes because I liked them so much that I wanted a "real" copy. That's right, I've PAID for the same album TWICE. I've done this more times than I care to count, but let me try: Speakerboxxx/The Love Below (OutKast), Elephant (the White Stripes), The Soul Sessions (Joss Stone), Stone Love (Angie Stone), Beautifully Human (Jill Scott), The River in Reverse (Elvis Costello)...that's all I can think of right now. But right there, that's SIX albums I've bought twice: Once in digital form, and again as a "real" CD. As for the rest of my burns, a good number are legit copies bought off of iTunes and eMusic. The rest (less than ten?) were burned off of friends.

So, ironically, I'm going a LONG way to defend a practice I don't engage in all that often. Doesn't make any difference to me. If I had only done it once, I'd still defend it because I don't think it's all that bad in the grand scheme of things.

[Alexander]

I still fail to see the difference.

Who the hell started the idiot festival?

Chuck, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and the music you've helped to produce. Don't blow it by acting like a jackass.

Seriously, I understand your take on this, since this is your bread and butter. You've been working "behind the scenes" for a long time, and that informs your perspective. My perspective is that of the music consumer. And as a consumer, who doesn't see ANY negative effects of either buying used or making burns, my point of view is bound to differ from yours. I'm not going to hurl insults at you just because we disagree, so please show me the same respect.

[Alexander]

I guess it's kind of cheesy to quote myself, but I still haven't seen anyone counter this:

Quick hypothetical example: You want to buy a cd, which I happen to own. You are holding out for a cheap copy (used/promo/whatever). I burn it for you, and you decide having the cdr is good enough for you. You are now out of the market for a cheap copy, so you don't pick up the used copy that turns up in your local shop next week. Someone else walks into the store, meaning to but the cd whether new or used, sees the used copy, and makes the purchase. If you had bought the used copy, they would have bought the new copy. The artist is now deprived of their 75 cent royalty.

I've seen this play out with my own eyes.

Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the second person (the one who *might* have bought new) decide not to buy the album at all? Or to look around and find another used copy? Or go home and ask a friend to make him a copy? Just because the used copy isn't available at that moment doesn't guarantee that a new sale is in the offing.

[Alexander]

I still fail to see the difference.

Undoubtedly more failures to come.

Chuck, how would you feel if I came upon a used copy of a Nessa CD? Would you mind if I bought it? Doesn't doing so deprive you of some money?

[Quincy]

I guess it's kind of cheesy to quote myself, but I still haven't seen anyone counter this:

Quick hypothetical example: You want to buy a cd, which I happen to own. You are holding out for a cheap copy (used/promo/whatever). I burn it for you, and you decide having the cdr is good enough for you. You are now out of the market for a cheap copy, so you don't pick up the used copy that turns up in your local shop next week. Someone else walks into the store, meaning to but the cd whether new or used, sees the used copy, and makes the purchase. If you had bought the used copy, they would have bought the new copy. The artist is now deprived of their 75 cent royalty.

I've seen this play out with my own eyes.

Not at all!

It's a point I've brought up in another thread too. When we didn't have CD burners and you wanted a CD, you were limited to buying new or used. With certain titles you'd try to wait out a used copy appearing in the racks, but if you lost patience you opened up the wallet and paid for the new one. Now that perfect copies can be made on CDRs the above purchasing behavior happens less frequently.

[J Larsen]

I guess it's kind of cheesy to quote myself, but I still haven't seen anyone counter this:

Quick hypothetical example: You want to buy a cd, which I happen to own. You are holding out for a cheap copy (used/promo/whatever). I burn it for you, and you decide having the cdr is good enough for you. You are now out of the market for a cheap copy, so you don't pick up the used copy that turns up in your local shop next week. Someone else walks into the store, meaning to but the cd whether new or used, sees the used copy, and makes the purchase. If you had bought the used copy, they would have bought the new copy. The artist is now deprived of their 75 cent royalty.

I've seen this play out with my own eyes.

Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the second person (the one who *might* have bought new) decide not to buy the album at all? Or to look around and find another used copy? Or go home and ask a friend to make him a copy? Just because the used copy isn't available at that moment doesn't guarantee that a new sale is in the offing.

I never suggested it happens every time... that would be no more plausible than suggesting it never happens. As long as there is a population of shoppers who would buy a new copy on the condition that a used copy is unavailable, then dissuading used purchases by providing burned copies leads to decreased sales of new product. It is obviously not a one-to-one correlation, i.e. not every burned copy translates into one less new copy being purchased. But neither is it a one-to-zero correlation. Therefore the economics of burned vs second hand copies do, indeed, differ.

[Neal Pomea]

Wake me up when the discussion turns to the ethics and economics of long copyright terms and the public domain.

No, seriously, this has been an interesting thread

[Chuck Nessa]

I still fail to see the difference.

Undoubtedly more failures to come.

Chuck, how would you feel if I came upon a used copy of a Nessa CD? Would you mind if I bought it? Doesn't doing so deprive you of some money?

Buy it. You obviously have not read the entire thread.

[Jim Alfredson]

Alexander,

In the case of the used vs. burned CD, it's really quite simple. A used CD sitting in a re-sale store was bought by someone at one time (unless it's a promo copy). So the artist was paid at least once. When you burn a copy for someone, the artist is not paid at all. Like Aggie said, you are creating another copy, which you do not have the right to do (unless it is for your own personal use).

In other words:

Two used copies = artist paid twice at some point in the chain

One used copy & one burn = artist paid only once for the used copy at some point in the chain

Regardless of all this, considering how ridiculously small the market is for jazz, that anyone would burn copies of discs for their friends and deprive hard-working musicians of income, is something that's beyond me. Yes, I have bought used CDs (rarely and usually only on ebay for out of print stuff) but I don't burn things for people.

This statement is quite telling: "My perspective is that of the music consumer. And as a consumer, who doesn't see ANY negative effects of either buying used or making burns..."

Of course you don't. In the case of burns, you're getting something for nothing. I'm sure the kids that stole the digital camera out of my car a few months ago don't see any negative effects of stealing people's stuff. Does that make it right?

I'm not preaching, just asking.

[Guy Berger]

Alexander,

In the case of the used vs. burned CD, it's really quite simple. A used CD sitting in a re-sale store was bought by someone at one time (unless it's a promo copy). So the artist was paid at least once. When you burn a copy for someone, the artist is not paid at all. Like Aggie said, you are creating another copy, which you do not have the right to do (unless it is for your own personal use).

In other words:

Two used copies = artist paid twice at some point in the chain

One used copy & one burn = artist paid only once for the used copy at some point in the chain

Jim,

I don't think this comparison is appropriate. The key assumption driving your results is the different number of original new copy sales, not the change in behavior (from used CD to burn). We should instead hold the number of initial sales constant and vary the behavior alone. i.e., compare two used copies to two used copies & two burns.

What I am trying to say is that we are trying to figure out if used sales are worse than CD-R copying. To determine that we need to hold the initial number of copies available constant and compare outcomes under used sales and CD-R copying. If we don't, that gives misleading results.

I will think a little more and see if I can explain it more clearly.

Guy

Edited November 4, 2006 by Guy

[Aggie87]

Guy -

I don't think it's fair to set the parameters as you want to. The used cd is still a legitimate copy of the music, while the burned CDR simply isn't.

Transferral of ownership of a legitimate CD is a legal action, burning a copy of a legitimate CD is not.

One of the problems with your thesis is that "initial sales" are taking place constantly, not just at one single point in time. There are new customers entering the market all the time, and other people who discover a particular title at different points in time.

[J Larsen]

Now this is what I call a Friday night!

[Jim Alfredson]

Why? The question is what is the difference between giving a CD-r copy to a friend or that friend buying a used CD. The difference is that the used CD was at least bought by someone along the line. The CD-r is a new creation that will never generate income for anyone.

[Guy Berger]

Why? The question is what is the difference between giving a CD-r copy to a friend or that friend buying a used CD.

Exactly, but...

The difference is that the used CD was at least bought by someone along the line. The CD-r is a new creation that will never generate income for anyone.

No. You don't create a CD-R out of nothing -- it was also bought by someone along the line.

Guy

[Alexander]

Why? The question is what is the difference between giving a CD-r copy to a friend or that friend buying a used CD.

Exactly, but...

The difference is that the used CD was at least bought by someone along the line. The CD-r is a new creation that will never generate income for anyone.

No. You don't create a CD-R out of nothing -- it was also bought by someone along the line.

Guy

Exactly!

[Chuck Nessa]

Why? The question is what is the difference between giving a CD-r copy to a friend or that friend buying a used CD.

Exactly, but...

The difference is that the used CD was at least bought by someone along the line. The CD-r is a new creation that will never generate income for anyone.

No. You don't create a CD-R out of nothing -- it was also bought by someone along the line.

Guy

BUT there are now two copies and the originators were paid for only one.

[Guy Berger]

Why? The question is what is the difference between giving a CD-r copy to a friend or that friend buying a used CD.

Exactly, but...

The difference is that the used CD was at least bought by someone along the line. The CD-r is a new creation that will never generate income for anyone.

No. You don't create a CD-R out of nothing -- it was also bought by someone along the line.

Guy

BUT there are now two copies and the originators were paid for only one.

As I showed before, if our primary objective is to maximize originator income then this is not relevant.

Guy

[Chuck Nessa]

Geez!

I didn't buy that.

[J Larsen]

Well, I still think I demonstrated that excess economic harm is caused by burning cds. Maybe you're all just too kind to embarass me by showing where I went wrong.

[Alexander]

Transferral of ownership of a legitimate CD is a legal action, burning a copy of a legitimate CD is not.

Because the law currently reads that way. As I noted elsewhere, there have been artists and producers who have sought to end the trade in used CDs (Garth Brooks for one). If the Supreme Court handed down a decision that made the buying and selling of used CDs a crime, would you "go gentle into that good night", or would you "rage, rage againt the dying of the light?"

A thing being against the law doesn't make it wrong, and a thing being legal doensn't make it right. Abortion used to be illegal in the United States. Aparthied used to be legal in South Africa. So before 1970, Abortion was wrong and before 1994 Aparthied was okay?

People should not walk where paths are laid. Paths should be laid where people walk.

[Chalupa]

I agree that burns of in print items are a no no. However....What about burns of l-o-n-g out of print material????? Say, something like Black Ark???

Instead of offering a hypothetical situation I'm going to give a real example. I've spent the past few months trying to track down a copy of Black Ark(in lp or cd format) on Ebay. No such luck. The last lp went for $153 and the last two cd auctions went for $305 and $309. That's a lot of money. A lot of money that Noah Howard is never going to see while this recording remains OOP. Now what if someone, as myself, made an attempt in good faith to obtain a copy through the legitmate secondary market fails to do so?? Am I to spend the rest of my life not being able to hear this music?? That doesn't really seem fair.

[Guy Berger]

Geez!

I didn't buy that.

Why not? Show which part of my reasoning was faulty.

Guy