Buying OOP used vinyl vs. download of same

[six string]

I'm not sure where to post this, but I'm interested in opinions about this topic because I don't have a solid answer myself (yet).

Is there a difference between buying a used lp in a record shop that isn't available on cd (either oop or never committed to digital) or downloading the same from a website that doesn't compensate the artist or his/her estate? I've been buying used vinyl for decades and of course the artist doesn't get compensated in this situation. Twenty or thirty years ago, it was fairly easy to find new lps that were still being produced by the original record company, so artists in theory could be compensated monetarily. Now however, a lot of said companies are no longer in business and artists are long gone, like the new records.

So if the artist or estate is not being compensated, how wrong is it to acquire these records with either method?

[Tom Storer]

If one were to be a hard-ass, legalistic, record-industry son of a bitch about it, one would say that it doesn't matter if a record is out of print, you CANNOT download an illicit copy without being consigned to HELL for eternity.

But as far as the artists, or other rights-holders for that matter, are concerned, for an OOP record they don't make a cent off either a second-hand sale or an illegal download, and they materially can't make a cent off a first-hand sale since there aren't any left, so if you download you hurt no one. To be perfectly morally pure, you would have to solemnly vow that if ever the record comes into print again, you will immediately purchase it and destroy your downloaded copy.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Tom Storer

[rockefeller center]

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...mp;#entry575259

[six string]

Thanks for the link. I should have known this had come up for discussion before.

[clifford_thornton]

If something oop was downloaded by the theoretical me (I don't download), I suspect I'd probably buy it legitimately if it ever were to be reissued.

I try to give back as much as I can in print - writing "reissue this" columns, for example - on the used LPs that I've bought that artists aren't paid for, or find some other way to compensate them if they are still with us.

[Aggie87]

If one were to be a hard-ass, legalistic, record-industry son of a bitch about it, one would say that it doesn't matter if a record is out of print, you CANNOT download an illicit copy without being consigned to HELL for eternity.

But as far as the artists, or other rights-holders for that matter, are concerned, for an OOP record they don't make a cent off either a second-hand sale or an illegal download, and they materially can't make a cent off a first-hand sale since there aren't any left, so if you download you hurt no one. To be perfectly morally pure, you would have to solemnly vow that if ever the record comes into print again, you will immediately purchase it and destroy your downloaded copy.

But the artist/rights holder DID earn their royalties off the LP, so it's a legitimate product that's just transferring hands. The artist made what he/she deserved from that copy of the vinyl.

The illegal download does not benefit the artist in the same manner.

[rockefeller center]

Thanks for the link. I should have known this had come up for discussion before.

You're welcome.

[clifford_thornton]

But the artist/rights holder DID earn their royalties off the LP, so it's a legitimate product that's just transferring hands. The artist made what he/she deserved from that copy of the vinyl.

More often than not, they don't...

[RDK]

But the artist/rights holder DID earn their royalties off the LP, so it's a legitimate product that's just transferring hands. The artist made what he/she deserved from that copy of the vinyl.

More often than not, they don't...

But that's an issue for the record label not the consumer, who (theoretically) paid fairly for it the first time.

[clifford_thornton]

Yes, I was just attempting to make a point.

[Aggie87]

But the artist/rights holder DID earn their royalties off the LP, so it's a legitimate product that's just transferring hands. The artist made what he/she deserved from that copy of the vinyl.

More often than not, they don't...

Okay, maybe the word "deserved" isn't quite right. "Was entitled to" - does that make better sense? I think the point is still the same though.

I think one of the flaws in the logic Alexander & Guy were using in the other thread is focusing on how many "owners" of the music there are. The real focus (I think) is the number of legitimate copies that have been sold. What happens (legally) to the copies after they're sold isn't controllable, nor should it really be. Just like second hand markets for any other consumer goods.

Buying a used car would certainly take on a whole new dimension if you had to pay an additional $2K directly to GM if you wanted to buy used Caprice or something.

[Parkertown]

But what if the reissue sounds like crap, with blaring treble and a narrowed soundstage?

Heh...

[fent99]

Something was pointed out to me the other day which made me think.

Now a new ipod has a storage capacity of 160 gig and they reckon thats 40,000 tunes. If I bought these all at £0.79 a song thats over £30,000 in monies to itunes. Does everyone have a collection worth that to put on it?

Wonder what the average lifetime spend on music is. For some here it might be that much since there are serious collectors but not for the average ipod buyer.

[WD45]

Where do the on-demand services fit in this discussion?

I have used Rhapsody to listen to all of the unreleased cuts on the new Miles Davis box for free, as a part of their 25 free listens per month deal. Could that be construed as some sort of circumvention here?

This discussion is going to change as a result of upcoming increases in bandwidth and new models of distribution arise. What if you could listen any album ever recorded at SACD resolution any time you wanted? How much would that be worth each month? Each year?

[Tom Storer]

But the artist/rights holder DID earn their royalties off the LP, so it's a legitimate product that's just transferring hands. The artist made what he/she deserved from that copy of the vinyl.

The illegal download does not benefit the artist in the same manner.

Certainly, but the ethical point of that argument is more applicable to the situation where a record is not out of print. In that case, clearly a second-hand sale is not objectionable whereas a copy is. Considered solely from the point of view of "is anyone deprived of income," a copy of an OOP record deprives no one of income until such time as the record is back in print again--at which point one's possession of the copy becomes ethically objectionable.

But now that I think of it, that's only as far as rights-holders are concerned. I guess you could say that copying an OOP record deprives second-hand dealers of a sale, so maybe you have something there. You might say that the original printing of those LPs established the entire pool of legitimately saleable objects, so any copying deprives someone of a sale, even if it's a second-hand dealer somewhere. I'll have to ponder this.

[Daniel A]

Enough copies of an OOP disc will theoretically affect the possibility of a legit reissue. If it's a rare album, which is in reality not too good there will be less demand for a reissue once people have had their curiousity satisfied. For example, if everyone around here had actually heard Andrew Hill's 'Dance With Death', how many would have bought the CD reissue? To me, that album seems to be a typical example of a really obscure album which was very hard to come by, much talked about, but in the end not so exciting when ity finally came out.

[six string]

Enough copies of an OOP disc will theoretically affect the possibility of a legit reissue. If it's a rare album, which is in reality not too good there will be less demand for a reissue once people have had their curiousity satisfied. For example, if everyone around here had actually heard Andrew Hill's 'Dance With Death', how many would have bought the CD reissue? To me, that album seems to be a typical example of a really obscure album which was very hard to come by, much talked about, but in the end not so exciting when ity finally came out.

That's a good point. Miracles do happen (sometimes).

[robviti]

what about the idea of supporting your local record store when it comes to buying used vinyl/cds versus downloading? i know the number of brick-and-mortars is dwindling fast, but while they're still around they deserve our consideration.

[clifford_thornton]

In-fugging-deed.

[six string]

Ab so fuggin lutely.

I spread my money around three local shops, all with great owners/clerks. Nothing like a little conversation and just plain hanging out a little as opposed to clicking your mouse.

[Alexander]

I think one of the flaws in the logic Alexander & Guy were using in the other thread is focusing on how many "owners" of the music there are. The real focus (I think) is the number of legitimate copies that have been sold...

The same number of legit copies have been sold in the case of buying used vs burning (I'm opposed to illegal downloads, which I consider to be a different issue). Think about it:

Case #1: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. This consumer grows weary of the CD and sells it to a used record store. A second consumer buys the used copy. One legitimate copy has been sold.

Case #2: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. The legit consumer burns a copy for his friend. One legitimate copy has been sold.

In both cases, the record company and the artist have made money on the first sale only.

[rockefeller center]

Think about it:

Case #1: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. This consumer grows weary of the CD and sells it to a used record store. A second consumer buys the used copy. One legitimate copy has been sold.

Case #2: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. The legit consumer burns a copy for his friend. One legitimate copy has been sold.

In both cases, the record company and the artist have made money on the first sale only.

In case #2 you have two people that can satisfy their hunger for the music contained on those discs. One of them paid.

[Alexander]

Think about it:

Case #1: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. This consumer grows weary of the CD and sells it to a used record store. A second consumer buys the used copy. One legitimate copy has been sold.

Case #2: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. The legit consumer burns a copy for his friend. One legitimate copy has been sold.

In both cases, the record company and the artist have made money on the first sale only.

In case #2 you have two people that can satisfy their hunger for the music contained on those discs. One of them paid.

But as the owner of the CD in question, I should have the right to "gift" that music to my friends. Again, I'm not talking about illegal downloading. I'm not making the music available to the whole world. I'm GIVING music that I personally paid for to ONE person. You (and others) focus on the fact that "two different people can listen to the same music in two different locations," while ignoring the fact that physical location/proximity to the music being played is becoming increasingly irrelevant. When I listen to music on the radio, SOMEONE paid money for that music (and for the broadcasting rights), but I sure didn't. Yet I am listening to it anyway. When I buy music on iTunes, I am allowed to make a limited number of copies (I know that these are SUPPOSED to be for "personal use only." Bongs are SUPPOSED to be for "tobacco use only"). When I buy a CD, I could bring it over to my friend's house every single day and listen to it with him. Two people are going to listen to that CD, but only one paid for it. It seems silly to quibble about such things. Distributing something to the whole world for free that you do not own is certainly wrong. Sharing with your pals seems to be a positive virtue. Or didn't you learn about that in Kindergarten?

[Aggie87]

Think about it:

Case #1: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. This consumer grows weary of the CD and sells it to a used record store. A second consumer buys the used copy. One legitimate copy has been sold.

Case #2: A new copy of a CD is sold to a legitimate consumer. The legit consumer burns a copy for his friend. One legitimate copy has been sold.

In both cases, the record company and the artist have made money on the first sale only.

In case #2 you have two people that can satisfy their hunger for the music contained on those discs. One of them paid.

But as the owner of the CD in question, I should have the right to "gift" that music to my friends. Again, I'm not talking about illegal downloading. I'm not making the music available to the whole world. I'm GIVING music that I personally paid for to ONE person. You (and others) focus on the fact that "two different people can listen to the same music in two different locations," while ignoring the fact that physical location/proximity to the music being played is becoming increasingly irrelevant. When I listen to music on the radio, SOMEONE paid money for that music (and for the broadcasting rights), but I sure didn't. Yet I am listening to it anyway. When I buy music on iTunes, I am allowed to make a limited number of copies (I know that these are SUPPOSED to be for "personal use only." Bongs are SUPPOSED to be for "tobacco use only"). When I buy a CD, I could bring it over to my friend's house every single day and listen to it with him. Two people are going to listen to that CD, but only one paid for it. It seems silly to quibble about such things. Distributing something to the whole world for free that you do not own is certainly wrong. Sharing with your pals seems to be a positive virtue. Or didn't you learn about that in Kindergarten?

Copying something you don't have the license or right to do so with is illegal. It's also unethical. And it's quite different than "sharing" as you prefer to call it. Sharing is for consumable things like cookies. Letting a friend borrow an LP or CD is sharing. The license for that copy is legitimate. Burning a copy is not sharing, nor is it legitimate. There is no legitimate license for that burnt copy.

I'm amazed you can't see that this deprives an artist, producer, and record company of due compensation. And that you clearly don't care. You aren't ENTITLED to free copies of music at your whim.

[rockefeller center]

When I listen to music on the radio, SOMEONE paid money for that music (and for the broadcasting rights), but I sure didn't.

Yes, and by the time the broadcast is over the music is gone (unless the listener recorded it - but that's another issue).

Sharing with your pals seems to be a positive virtue. Or didn't you learn about that in Kindergarten?

I never had pals and I didn't learn about positve virtues in Kindergarten. Did share some discs and stuff though.

Your arguments failed to convince me. It's 2 A.M. and I just realized that, to me, this discussion is a fucking bore. So please don't waste your time on me any further.

I wish you a pleasant evening.