Current trend: selling original CDs but keeping the mp3s

[Aggie87]

I don't follow. If for example (btw. I am too lazy to do this myself) I trade in 30 CDs I never play anymore for a credit slip that allows me to buy 8 brand new CD's keep a copy on my hard drive, trade them back in within a week to get credit to buy 3 more new CD's I don't see how that is hurting the artist or producer. It seems like the only people its hurting is the record store by taking advantage of the policy they created. At any rate 11 new CD's got purchased within a week.

Either way you push 11 CDs in excellent condition into the second hand market

that will possibly be bought instead of new copies (as they're almost as good but

cheaper), thus hurting the artists and the producer after all.

And the copies you keep are definitely illegal.

I don't consider the second-hand market a problem, in fact I like to browse and find things used (unfortunatley there aren't many places around to do that in anymore). Those items in the second hand market are all legitimate items, simply transferring ownership. Like cars, homes, and books, as Seeline suggested.

The creation of digital copies and not keeping the item which allows you the license to do so is the problem - that's where the creators of music are losing out.

[seeline]

I still really don't see how ripping audio files from a CD is cheating anyone - if you don't pirate the material, or "share" copyrighted stuff. If it sits on your HD or iPod and you listen to it, but don't reproduce it *for sale* (or generally flout the law in some way or other) then how...?

Honestly. Piracy is a whole different matter. (I think, but that's just me.)

[Soulstation1]

where's dan and goodspeak???

[Aggie87]

I still really don't see how ripping audio files from a CD is cheating anyone - if you don't pirate the material, or "share" copyrighted stuff. If it sits on your HD or iPod and you listen to it, but don't reproduce it *for sale* (or generally flout the law in some way or other) then how...?

Because you possess a copy which you aren't legally entitled to possess. It's a lost sale, which makes it morally or ethically wrong too, IMO. I sympathise with the artist and producers of the music in this situation (obviously )

Edited February 15, 2008 by Aggie87

[RDK]

where's dan and goodspeak???

Why, is the Rocket now illegally burning CDs too?

[seeline]

Aggies, how can this be dealt with in a reasonable way, other than charging people twice for the same new item? (Again, I'm not being facetious or intending to be provocative in any way at all.)

What if the thing you ripped is o.p. and rare anyway? What if the label's out of business, and hasn't had its catalogue bought up by another label?

There are so many "what ifs" that I'm not sure it's possible to make some sort of boilerplate ruling - except in our private lives.

[Aggie87]

Aggies, how can this be dealt with in a reasonable way, other than charging people twice for the same new item? (Again, I'm not being facetious or intending to be provocative in any way at all.)

What if the thing you ripped is o.p. and rare anyway? What if the label's out of business, and hasn't had its catalogue bought up by another label?

There are so many "what ifs" that I'm not sure it's possible to make some sort of boilerplate ruling - except in our private lives.

It's up to your individual ethics and moral compass I guess.

Illegal copying contributes to a negative spiral - it results in fewer sales of music, and is helping to destroy the industry. Labels shut down, get bought out and shuttered, inventory ends up in some storage facility in some mountain somewhere, never to be seen again, and people lose their jobs. Availability of music dwindles, and artists lose established avenues to provide us music.

[porcy62]

Aggies, how can this be dealt with in a reasonable way, other than charging people twice for the same new item? (Again, I'm not being facetious or intending to be provocative in any way at all.)

What if the thing you ripped is o.p. and rare anyway? What if the label's out of business, and hasn't had its catalogue bought up by another label?

There are so many "what ifs" that I'm not sure it's possible to make some sort of boilerplate ruling - except in our private lives.

Yep, that's the reason because courts exists: "what ifs".

I mean that a law about a complex issue like copyright, the more, such law strongly wanted by the majors for pure economic interest, has to be corrected through sentences.

The point is that I think they closed the gate when the sheeps are gone. Too late. And since they couldn't really fight great piracy, they got their revenge on small fish like me and you.

[Teasing the Korean]

But once you sell it, you can't legally keep the copy.

Unless I missed it, you have not yet cited where this concept is legally addressed, or if anyone has tried to enforce it.

I understand the moral side of the question, but you haven't convinced me that it's ILLEGAL. Please enlighten me.

[Aggie87]

But once you sell it, you can't legally keep the copy.

Unless I missed it, you have not yet cited where this concept is legally addressed, or if anyone has tried to enforce it.

I understand the moral side of the question, but you haven't convinced me that it's ILLEGAL. Please enlighten me.

The CD is what gives you your legal license to make *and* possess a copy of the music contained on it. If you sell the CD, you no longer have the legal license - it transfers with ownership of the cd. This seems self-obvious to me.

I'm not sure how to spell this out any more than that.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Aggie87

[seeline]

I think something that's missing from this discussion (though I've raised it several times, as have others) is that *internet distribution is a reality now.*

an awful lot of what the RIAA is trying to do is self-defeating because they're ignoring new business models that they should be using instead of scorning.

Even Maria Schneider sells high-bitrate downloadable files on her portion of the ArtistShare site, along with PDFs of the liners to her CDs.

The industry's infrastructure has been in the process of collapsing - and being reinvented via other means/media - for some years now. But they keep insisting that everyone has to play by their rules, even if the way in which they do business is entirely outmoded.

People might not like the fact that things have changed, but there's no way to turn back the clock.

if the majors act in a creative way, to get their stuff out there to the people who want it, then ... things will be different, and hopefully, better, for lots of people. Individual artists (and not just artists under 30!) have been moving to new, internet-based models for sales and the majors are apparently loath to follow. That's undercutting their profits, in a pretty substantial way - as are the growing number of artists and labels that are opting out of RIAA membership.

Oh well. We won't solve the world's problems today, will we?!

[porcy62]

Oh well. We won't solve the world's problems today, will we?!

Indeed, it's Friday. Let's think about it on monday morning.

[seeline]

Oh well. We won't solve the world's problems today, will we?!

Indeed, it's Friday. Let's think about it on monday morning.

Sounds like a great idea to me!

[Aggie87]

I think something that's missing from this discussion (though I've raised it several times, as have others) is that *internet distribution is a reality now.*

an awful lot of what the RIAA is trying to do is self-defeating because they're ignoring new business models that they should be using instead of scorning.

Even Maria Schneider sells high-bitrate downloadable files on her portion of the ArtistShare site, along with PDFs of the liners to her CDs.

The industry's infrastructure has been in the process of collapsing - and being reinvented via other means/media - for some years now. But they keep insisting that everyone has to play by their rules, even if the way in which they do business is entirely outmoded.

People might not like the fact that things have changed, but there's no way to turn back the clock.

if the majors act in a creative way, to get their stuff out there to the people who want it, then ... things will be different, and hopefully, better, for lots of people. Individual artists (and not just artists under 30!) have been moving to new, internet-based models for sales and the majors are apparently loath to follow. That's undercutting their profits, in a pretty substantial way - as are the growing number of artists and labels that are opting out of RIAA membership.

Oh well. We won't solve the world's problems today, will we?!

I generally agree with this

And my arguments all have to do with illegal downloading or copying of music, not legitimate downloading.

[RDK]

Aggies, how can this be dealt with in a reasonable way, other than charging people twice for the same new item? (Again, I'm not being facetious or intending to be provocative in any way at all.)

What if the thing you ripped is o.p. and rare anyway? What if the label's out of business, and hasn't had its catalogue bought up by another label?

There are so many "what ifs" that I'm not sure it's possible to make some sort of boilerplate ruling - except in our private lives.

It's up to your individual ethics and moral compass I guess.

Illegal copying contributes to a negative spiral - it results in fewer sales of music, and is helping to destroy the industry. Labels shut down, get bought out and shuttered, inventory ends up in some storage facility in some mountain somewhere, never to be seen again, and people lose their jobs. Availability of music dwindles, and artists lose established avenues to provide us music.

Not sure if I agree with all of this. Yes, there are repercussions due to illegal downloading, but there are many other factors as well (imo greater) contributing to the decline in record sales. Since the rise in digital distribution (legal or otherwise), I'd argue that the availability of music (especially the rare and oop stuff) has increased dramatically. And artists (especially jazz artists and the smaller markets) have far more avenues of exposure than they did before. It's not "destroying" the industry; it's changing it.

[Teasing the Korean]

The CD is what gives you your legal license to make *and* possess a copy of the music contained on it. If you sell the CD, you no longer have the legal license - it transfers with ownership of the cd. This seems self-obvious to me.

I'm not sure how to spell this out any more than that.

What "seems obvious" is not "law." WHERE specifically is this addressed, or does it just seem illegal to you because you think it should be?

[Aggie87]

The CD is what gives you your legal license to make *and* possess a copy of the music contained on it. If you sell the CD, you no longer have the legal license - it transfers with ownership of the cd. This seems self-obvious to me.

I'm not sure how to spell this out any more than that.

What "seems obvious" is not "law." WHERE specifically is this addressed, or does it just seem illegal to you because you think it should be?

Perhaps someone with a legal background can answer this better than me.

When you buy a license to do something, and later sell the license, how can you possibly still own the license?

[Teasing the Korean]

When you buy a license to do something, and later sell the license, how can you possibly still own the license?

If it hasn't been legally addressed in this arena, then you can. And I simply want to know if it's been legally addressed with CD copying.

[A Lark Ascending]

Yes, there are repercussions due to illegal downloading, but there are many other factors as well (imo greater) contributing to the decline in record sales. Since the rise in digital distribution (legal or otherwise), I'd argue that the availability of music (especially the rare and oop stuff) has increased dramatically. And artists (especially jazz artists and the smaller markets) have far more avenues of exposure than they did before. It's not "destroying" the industry; it's changing it.

I think that's the key point.

The dinosaur companies are desperately trying to preserve the status quo, only moving with the technology when no other possibility presents itself. If they put a fraction of the money they spend chasing illegal downloaders into offering a distinct, unique product then they might start to get somewhere. Instead of trying to litigate their survival they need to be accepting that the cat is out of the bag and they've got to provide something very different.

Smaller labels and independent musicians are adapting much more effectively.

I suspect in the world of specialist music (as opposed to mass popular music) there are a majority of people prepared to pay a fair price for legitimate material in the knowledge that those who made the music are getting a fair deal. Instead of sitting on a vast body of unreleased material and then moaning when another company puts it out, get it out properly.

Chandos have all their OOP recording available for download. I'm sure these could then be illegally file-shared. But they've taken the risk that enough people want to play straight. They're now offering higher resolution 'lossless' downloads. This company seems to be investing in the technological revolution instead of trying to stop it in its tracks.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[seeline]

Aggie, I have a lot of sympathy for your views, as I've wrestled with them myself, and am not at all 100% sure where I stand on the issue right now, except for this - I think intent is crucial.

Like many people here, I resisted downloading for a long time, and then found that i could legally download rare and o.p. music from sources like eMusic.com I still didn't like the idea of low-bitrate files (and that hasn't changed), but the opportunity to be able to hear (and, sometimes, study) music that had been absolutely n/a in any form (inn the US, at least) lured me in. Would I like to have liner notes, even now? The answer is yes - but the tradeoff has been, for the most part, positive and painless.

As Bev's mentioned re. labels like Chandos making back catalogue available, they stand to gain far more than they might lose in potential illegal file-sharing - customer loyalty is one of them, and that's a *huge* factor in itself. (One of the single most important, I think.)

And on eMusic alone, you can now get an incredible amount of stuff that's been confined to "local" markets since forever. One of the areas that's surging ahead on that site: locally-produced music from all over Africa. In the jazz and classical categories, you can see much the same... and in others as well.

CD Baby is now giving artists the option of selling both CDs and downloads (includes liners). A lot of artists are opting into that, and I've got more than a sneaking suspicion that they're gaining airplay as a result - along with exposure on music blogs, which is where "niche" music has had a home for quite some time.

yes, a lot of people are greedy, a lot of people could care less about whether the artist gets any money or not, but I'm not sure that that's the case for the folks who really *care* about the music in question.

I'm seeing - increasingly - artists sending copies of their CDs to MP3 bloggers, so that those bloggers can (if they choose) promote their stuff. I've also seen respected artists going the next step, in making copies of rare, o.p. material (that majors are sitting on and refusing to reissue) available via music blogs. In several cases this has resulted in reissues of the actual recordings, for people to actually buy. (The cases I'm citing have mostly been occurring on Brazilian-focused blogs, and the recordings in question have been reissued by Brazilian majors - small labels, too.) There are times when I feel that people go too far with this and take it into questionable territory, but for those who really love good music, that's seldom the case.

I've been burned by pirates myself, through legit outlets - and it makes me angry that anyone would have the gall to steal everything (even the artwork and logos!) to rip off artists who don't even own the rights to the recordings in question. (It's happened to me - and at least one other person I know - in the course of buying rare Brazilian discs.) I would actually like to be able to give a couple of artists some kind of compensation for the losses they've incurred through what the pirates did. I have no sympathy at all for that kind of activity.

but now we're dealing with new media, and trying to impose the same laws used for the "old" media (along with the older business models) is simply not working. What we've got on the books now, via the DMCA, is mostly unrealistic. That whole act - and all its provisions - needs to be gone over very carefully and amended so that artists benefit - and so that the default stance toward consumers isn't one that views them all as potential pirates (or worse).

but I think I'd better get off my soapbox for now, eh?

Edited February 15, 2008 by seeline

[A Lark Ascending]

I'm always impressed by DGM - the King Crimson/Robert Fripp site. Fripp has been fighting the majors for decades to secure what he considers ethical treatment of performers.

Instead of the majors approach of witholding product to create demand, DGM seems happy to swamp the site with more downloads than you'd ever want, giving the listener a vast range to choose from at very reasonable prices.

How many times have we been to a concert, loved it, bought the album, only to find the performances truncated or studio bound. With live digital recording quality what it is now, there's nothing to stop a recording being made on tour and put up on an artists website for interested parties to download.

Dave Douglas did this last year; and David Binney has been recording many of his concerts for download.

The album every 2 years catches a fraction of what jazz performers are doing. Modern technology has the potential to allow us to hear a broader picture.

Lots of us delight in the release of live recordings, airshots etc of past greats like Ellington. Current technology allows us to access this in the hear and now.

I don't see the availability of a live download adversely affecting sales of a carefully constructed album (however it is distributed). With a performer I admire it's more likely to draw me towards it.

Of course, it all runs the danger of more music than we can ever digest. But that's for the individual listener to control.

[WD45]

The CD is what gives you your legal license to make *and* possess a copy of the music contained on it. If you sell the CD, you no longer have the legal license - it transfers with ownership of the cd. This seems self-obvious to me.

I'm not sure how to spell this out any more than that.

What "seems obvious" is not "law." WHERE specifically is this addressed, or does it just seem illegal to you because you think it should be?

It is explicitly stated on this Elgar compilation on my desk:

"All rights of the producer and of the owner of this work reproduced reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited."

[Teasing the Korean]

Think of all the kids with Elgar on their iPods...

[Aggie87]

Bev (and Clave) -

I'm totally on board with legal downloads, which is what you both are referring to.

I've bought items from DGM and Dave Douglas directly, as well as other band websites that I frequent. I think that's a good business model for the future - or at least a step in the right direction.

I've bought some vinyl from the label Yep Roc in the past year, and when you do that, they immediately make available MP3's of the music you have just purchased - before you even receive the vinyl in the mail.

[WorldB3]

Bev (and Clave) -

I'm totally on board with legal downloads, which is what you both are referring to.

I've bought items from DGM and Dave Douglas directly, as well as other band websites that I frequent. I think that's a good business model for the future - or at least a step in the right direction.

I've bought some vinyl from the label Yep Roc in the past year, and when you do that, they immediately make available MP3's of the music you have just purchased - before you even receive the vinyl in the mail.

If all labels would include MP3's with new vinyl I would only buy new vinyl.

If I really want to support an artist I will go their site or their labels site and download directly as that way I know the most amount of money is going to the artists or the people that support them.

Edited February 15, 2008 by WorldB3