Current trend: selling original CDs but keeping the mp3s

[porcy62]

It's a political question, who gets a slice of the pie?

What about the makers of devices that contribute to possible infringement? I mean the makers of programs and devices that can burn cds from one's legally obtained copy? They have an economic interest in the right to sell those devices, even if in the process the consumer breaks the law and some artists works are being copied willy nilly.

Actually in Italy we have to pay some kind of copyright's infringment tax on cd-r.

Obviously, a lot of people don't use cd-r for illegal copying, but...the government rised the price of cd-r by law in order to fight piracy.

I am not sure, but I think that, as usual, some money go to government, some money go to producers.

So we have to pay a cd-r twice the price.

As you can probably imagine the big bastards of copyright's infringments didn't give a damn about this law, they simply buy the cd-r abroad, because everything is illegal for them.

It's like to tax guns, do you really think that mafia's mobs and the goodfellas would pay it?

[Teasing the Korean]

Buying a music CD means buying the rights to use the music contained therein

and not just buying the actual disc. You can make copies of the music to various

formats for your own personal use as long as you own those rights. By selling the

CD, you also sell those rights and every other copy that you keep becomes illegal.

When you buy digital downloads, you only buy the rights to use those files. You

are not allowed to sell those rights or the file. It's all in the iTunes small print.

It's all quite simple really.

I hear you regarding iTunes. But is it specified on each CD that I have to destroy all copies if I unload the original?

I am simply asking where this is stated and under whose jurisdiction does it fall?

Edited February 14, 2008 by Teasing the Korean

[analogak]

if i sell a CD, it is dead to me. i want nothing to do with the sounds contained upon it anymore.

[porcy62]

if i sell a CD, it is dead to me. i want nothing to do with the sounds contained upon it anymore.

Go ahead, make my day.

[seeline]

There are other file formats - Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, for example - that seem to be popular in many audiophile circles, FLAC especially. (Stands for "free lossless audio codec.") Some of those formats sound better to me than MP3s ripped at 256-320 kbps, but I've done double-blind tests on supposedly "lossless" formats vs. 256k (or above) MP3s using the (not inexpensive) headphones that I use with both my iPod and CD player - and my ears couldn't tell the difference between the two. (MP3s ripped at significantly lower bitrates are another story altogether, though...)

For a little over a year, I had a digital "radio" station on Live365.com, and I have to say that there really are advantages to storing audio files on dedicated hard drives. it was far easier for me to upload a new playlist using already-ripped files than to sit here ripping a track here, a track there from who knows how many different CDs to try and set up a playlist and...

I'm seeing a number of labels that are moving toward vinyl/320 k MP3 releases only, and think that's the beginning of the future staring us in the face. I've also seen a fair number of posts (not on music boards) written by younger people who didn't grow up hearing vinyl - but they've fallen in love with it, as much for the pleasure of looking at the LP cover and owning an object as for the sound itself.

Like Bev, I feel far less tied to physical discs (of any kind) these days - even knowing that most MP3s are encoded at a pretty low bitrate (though not all - there are *some* 320k files available on Emusic and other download services).

yes, it's a pain to back things up, but... I can slip a small USB HD in my bag or laptop case, and I've got who knows how many hours of music available? It's very convenient, just as iPods are.

i also love using my iPod to do things like comparing different versions of the same piece - whether it's classical, samba, jazz, whatever. You can't do that with vinyl or CD, at least not as easily as you can using some of the iPod's basic menus.

As for sales of used CDs and LPs, the artists and labels don't see 1 cent of profit from resale - which is, I think, one of the things that irks the RIAA and the Copyright Royalty Board the most. (I no longer have a digital broadcast due to untenable restrictions posed by both the RIAA and CRB in the wake of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's not having netted either body as much income as they'd like to see - and what they *do* get is generally not seen by the artists or composers.)

Rant over (for now )!

[porcy62]

As for sales of used CDs and LPs, the artists and labels don't see 1 cent of profit from resale - which is, I think, one of the things that irks the RIAA and the Copyright Royalty Board the most. (I no longer have a digital broadcast due to untenable restrictions posed by both the RIAA and CRB in the wake of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's not having netted either body as much income as they'd like to see - and what they *do* get is generally not seen by the artists or composers.)

This is absurd! When I sell my old Mustang, should I pay some copyright to Ford? When I sell my used Apple laptop should I pay the copyright for the software on it?

Used stuff is beyond copyright's laws. I paided once, that's all.

[RDK]

No one here seems to be aware of any law requiring a consumer to destroy copies after he/she has sold the original.

Buying a music CD means buying the rights to use the music contained therein

and not just buying the actual disc. You can make copies of the music to various

formats for your own personal use as long as you own those rights. By selling the

CD, you also sell those rights and every other copy that you keep becomes illegal.

When you buy digital downloads, you only buy the rights to use those files. You

are not allowed to sell those rights or the file. It's all in the iTunes small print.

It's all quite simple really.

Personally, I wouldn't base any moral, ethical, or legal obligations re: downloadable music on iTunes' "small print." But the fact that one can't (easily) burn to disc, transfer, and/or resell (hey, I'm paying for them) iTunes files is one reason I stay away from iTunes as much as possible, prefer emusic by a wide margin, and would still rather own the physical CD or LP.

[GA Russell]

Getting back to the original post, it is a mystery to me why people would sell their CDs after putting their music libraries on one item, such as a hard drive or an iPod; particularly when hard drives and iPods have a reputation for failing.

If something goes wrong, there goes your library!

[porcy62]

No one here seems to be aware of any law requiring a consumer to destroy copies after he/she has sold the original.

Buying a music CD means buying the rights to use the music contained therein

and not just buying the actual disc. You can make copies of the music to various

formats for your own personal use as long as you own those rights. By selling the

CD, you also sell those rights and every other copy that you keep becomes illegal.

When you buy digital downloads, you only buy the rights to use those files. You

are not allowed to sell those rights or the file. It's all in the iTunes small print.

It's all quite simple really.

From a legal perspective you may be right: if you buy only copyrights with downloading it might be fine, though I still have some doubt: if your hard disk crashed, you should pay again the copyright or suppose that your back up stood fover, will your heirs have it as heritage? Is there any expiry date of copyright for personal use in legal downloading? And if your heirs want to share the inheritance and you have all your cds and a legit back up, what's about copyrights?

All this is a paradox, but IMO show the holes and failure of these kind of laws.

[RDK]

Getting back to the original post, it is a mystery to me why people would sell their CDs after putting their music libraries on one item, such as a hard drive or an iPod; particularly when hard drives and iPods have a reputation for failing.

If something goes wrong, there goes your library!

I agree it's a stupid thing to do, but I thought i explained above why people would do it. After you've ripped the music, the CDs are expendable, they take up a lot of room, and one can sell them. The physical object is essentially junk at that point. You can either store the discs in the garage or make some money selling them. Most of us here are collectors who appreciate the artwork, notes, and physical object that goes along with the music. But for many others (and I'm loathe to use the term "younger generation"), the physical CD holds little meaning. It simply takes up space. Honestly, I have a harder time understanding why someone who would rip all their music to digital would want to keep their CDs in storage.

I thought for a brief moment of ripping at least some of my collection to mp3, but then realized it wasn't worth the bother. I have scads of LPS and CDs, but I also have thousands of mp3 tracks (mostly emusic stuff) already and there's no reason I need to duplicate them on multiple formats. In the car I can play CDs; at work, CDs or mp3s; at home, any of the above.

[RDK]

No one here seems to be aware of any law requiring a consumer to destroy copies after he/she has sold the original.

Buying a music CD means buying the rights to use the music contained therein

and not just buying the actual disc. You can make copies of the music to various

formats for your own personal use as long as you own those rights. By selling the

CD, you also sell those rights and every other copy that you keep becomes illegal.

When you buy digital downloads, you only buy the rights to use those files. You

are not allowed to sell those rights or the file. It's all in the iTunes small print.

It's all quite simple really.

From a legal perspective you may be right: if you buy only copyrights with downloading it might be fine, though I still have some doubt: if your hard disk crashed, you should pay again the copyright or suppose that your back up stood fover, will your heirs have it as heritage? Is there any expiry date of copyright for personal use in legal downloading? And if your heirs want to share the inheritance and you have all your cds and a legit back up, what's about copyrights?

All this is a paradox, but IMO show the holes and failure of these kind of laws.

Heh. Good points. If I buy emusic or iTunes tracks and burn them to CD to listen to in the car (or whatever, which is my legal right to do for personal use) and then die, do my heirs get to play those mp3s or burned CDRs? And if you consider them inheritable proprety, why can't they be passed on/sold to someone else while one is still alive?

Yeah, some of this is silly conjecture and ethical mind games, but these are all serious questions that need to be considered as we, as a society, move toward a digital future and sound recordings become increasingly less confined by a physical medium. Even now, personally, I still value the object and tend to consider mp3s and CDRs relatively "worthless." I think a lot of us do, but that's a mindset that is rapidly changing.

[Aggie87]

I agree it's a stupid thing to do, but I thought i explained above why people would do it. After you've ripped the music, the CDs are expendable, they take up a lot of room, and one can sell them. The physical object is essentially junk at that point.

The thing is, it's NOT junk at that point. The CD's are your legal license to possess the digital versions of the music.

I know younger people consider it junk, but it's not.

And I have no problem buying the used CDs that those people sell. It gives me the license to do what I want with them, that they have given up, regardless whether they possess MP3s of that music or not still.

[seeline]

As for sales of used CDs and LPs, the artists and labels don't see 1 cent of profit from resale - which is, I think, one of the things that irks the RIAA and the Copyright Royalty Board the most. (I no longer have a digital broadcast due to untenable restrictions posed by both the RIAA and CRB in the wake of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's not having netted either body as much income as they'd like to see - and what they *do* get is generally not seen by the artists or composers.)

This is absurd! When I sell my old Mustang, should I pay some copyright to Ford? When I sell my used Apple laptop should I pay the copyright for the software on it?

Used stuff is beyond copyright's laws. I paided once, that's all.

Well, music copyrights are complex - unlike author's rights on published material, music copyrights all too often belong to someone other than the creator of the material (i.e., composer, lyricist or group). I'm sure there are others here who could explain the minutiae of recording contracts - especially major-label contracts - far better than I could hope to do. The fact is that until recently - and now, only in certain cases - does any composer or lyricist or group or individual artist have anything like the same rights and privileges as authors.

And the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has, if anything, muddied the waters even further, in that the claims made about "CD quality" internet broadcasting are pretty specious. (64k is NOT "CD quality," no matter how many lawyers try to dance on the head of a the proverbial pin to demonstrate that somehow, it really *is* the same as a CD.)

Who was it that said "The law is an ass"? It certainly can be, and in the matter of copyrights on recorded and broadcast music, that saying is particularly true. There's a whole lot I could go into here regarding the DMCA and internet broadcasting, but I'll refrain, except to say that there are explicit rules that forbid internet broadcasters to play more than a minimal number of tracks by the same artist in any given 3-hour period of time; ditto for albums and cuts by several artists that come from the same compilation. Artist "sets" are basically illegal under the DMCA, even if/when the broadcaster is using music from diverse sources.

the legal machinations involved (in terms of the RIAA and the Copyright Royalty Board trying to alter the state of internet broadcasting) began to affect independent/small broadcasters in a very negative way a little over a year ago. I quit at that point, since there was no way I could continue to cooperate with these restrictions and be able to afford to pay licensing fees and permissions.

It would be nice if copyright law changed to reflect the realities of what musicians actually *do,* but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon, so...

There is equal madness going on with the RIAA's relentless pursuit of illegal downloading and the "test cases" they've tried to railroad through courts. If only musicians actually *saw* some of the money the RIAA and Copright Royalty Board are demanding, it might be justifiable. But it's far more like an industry lobby that exists to perpetuate itself, as opposed to being an advocacy group for artists.

Very sad, on the whole - not to mention unrealistic.

Edited February 15, 2008 by seeline

[RDK]

Who was it that said "The law is an ass"?

Chuck Dickens, iirc. And I believe it's "The law is a ass," as awkward as that sounds (but i believe there's an explanation for that too).

As for the rest of your post:

[AndrewHill]

Never got into the MP3/CDR/Ipod/Emusic/Itunes biz. I've always liked having a genuine product manufatured by the label or legally representing the label with, if possible, the original artwork, notes etc. For me, the music is an experience that's not just strictly listening. I like to look at the cover art and photos and read about the music in the liner notes, while listening to the music. It seems harder to do that when there are 10,000 songs all compressed in a box. I guess I'm kinda old-fashioned that way.

[John L]

Getting back to the original post, it is a mystery to me why people would sell their CDs after putting their music libraries on one item, such as a hard drive or an iPod; particularly when hard drives and iPods have a reputation for failing.

If something goes wrong, there goes your library!

People solve that problem by backing up their files. A couple backups actually probably gives you more security than physical CDs or LPs, which can become scratched or warped or deteriorate in other ways. Keeping backups in different locations also insures your collection against theft.

It is no mystery to me why people do what they do. People are greedy. They want their music and money too. And not everyone is an audiophile. I love music as much as anybody, but usually have no problem with the sound quality of good MP3s, even the 128bit iTunes MP3s. Personally, I am not selling my ripped CDs, but don't have any questions in my mind about why so many other people do it.

Think of this as well: I conjecture that if the copyright law in question could be enforced, most good used CD stores (like Ameoba in California) would go out of business right away. My son worked in Ameoba, and knows that the majority of their profits now come from a 50% buy back policy.

Edited February 15, 2008 by John L

[A Lark Ascending]

Never got into the MP3/CDR/Ipod/Emusic/Itunes biz. I've always liked having a genuine product manufatured by the label or legally representing the label with, if possible, the original artwork, notes etc. For me, the music is an experience that's not just strictly listening. I like to look at the cover art and photos and read about the music in the liner notes, while listening to the music. It seems harder to do that when there are 10,000 songs all compressed in a box. I guess I'm kinda old-fashioned that way.

Well, at least one pop/rock performer recognises your preferences:

February 2008 will see Chris Rea, one of the UK’s most respected singers and guitarists, embark upon a full UK and European tour, to coincide with the release of his new music book ‘The Return Of The Fabulous Hofner Bluenotes’ – the story of a late fifties guitar instrumental band (The Delmonts) that evolved into a 60’s blues band (The Hofner Blue Notes). This will also be in the format of a musical book with 80 pages, vinyl records and three CD’s, as was his groundbreaking ‘Blue Guitars’ music book, which sold enough copies to have topped the charts in the single CD category.

After his well documented health crisis, Chris had decided that it was no longer creative or fun enough to just release yet another single CD, finding it much better and rewarding for both him and his new expanding audience to create something more special to own and enjoy. His vision was proven to be accurate with the sale of over 150,000 ‘Blue Guitars’ books. Chris believes with a passion that the new download market is opening up a new door for more thoughtful and substantial quality product. If you live and breathe for music and not necessarily showbiz, track downloading is simply not enough.

From: http://www.chrisrea.com/home.html

There was a 3 minute item about this on the early morning news in the UK a few days back.

I'm sure many Chris Rea fans will not be content to have just an MP3 copied from a mate. Scanning the book might just prove too arduous!!!!

[Kyo]

But is it specified on each CD that I have to destroy all copies if I unload the original?

I am simply asking where this is stated and under whose jurisdiction does it fall?

I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess it's stated in the same place where you can find the permission

to even make that "copy for personal use", no? They don't put that on the CDs either.

[ejp626]

But is it specified on each CD that I have to destroy all copies if I unload the original?

I am simply asking where this is stated and under whose jurisdiction does it fall?

I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess it's stated in the same place where you can find the permission

to even make that "copy for personal use", no? They don't put that on the CDs either.

Ok, this is from Electronic Frontier Foundation, so you know where there biases are. While the Betamax decision is largely irrelevant to ripping MP3s, the RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia decision is timely. It was a 1999 decision from a federal Appeals Court which has not been overturned.

4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)

Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

Wikipedia is also very interesting: Wiki copying

Perhaps this is too opaque, but the general feeling is that fair use doctrine (in the US) does allow for ripping CDs you own (a non-infringing use), even though RIAA is not going to print this in CD booklets. The ruling would not cover CDs you do not own. However, the law is silent on cases where you have ripped a CD you own and then the CD is damaged to the point it must be discarded. Taken to extremes, one might time-shift a song past the point where one owned the physical copy (i.e. sold it to a second-hand store) and be covered, though this has not been litigated. In practical terms, it is a moral issue and not a legal one, given the loopholes in the law and that RIAA focuses on Napster-like sites. Just a note that Canada (like Italy) also collects a fee on blank CDRs to reimburse copyright holders.

Edited February 15, 2008 by ejp626

[John L]

But is it specified on each CD that I have to destroy all copies if I unload the original?

I am simply asking where this is stated and under whose jurisdiction does it fall?

I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess it's stated in the same place where you can find the permission

to even make that "copy for personal use", no? They don't put that on the CDs either.

I think that the legal requirement would not be destruction. In a transaction, you are transferring rights to the music to somebody else. Therefore, legally, you must give up those rights. In other words, you would have to transfer all copies that you made along with the original. Destroying the copies would be another way out. But you should not be able to access the music anymore.

[JSngry]

Legalities aside, I think it's a bad idea (a bonehead idea, actually...) to have your storage media & your playback medium combined into a single unit w/no backup of the media in a separate location.

[Christiern]

It's easy to understand why people do this: they are cheap!

I find more acceptable the copying to MP3 (or whatever) of material if the original is given away.

However, I take a dim view of cheating performers who put out their own recordings or small independent labels. The big guys? They and their RIAA mafia deserve every loss they get..

[7/4]

Getting back to the original post, it is a mystery to me why people would sell their CDs after putting their music libraries on one item, such as a hard drive or an iPod; particularly when hard drives and iPods have a reputation for failing.

If something goes wrong, there goes your library!

People solve that problem by backing up their files. A couple backups actually probably gives you more security than physical CDs or LPs, which can become scratched or warped or deteriorate in other ways. Keeping backups in different locations also insures your collection against theft.

See post #2. What kind of backup do you suggest for 40-60 gigs of mp3 files? How much time is it going to take to do this?

Legalities aside, I think it's a bad idea (a bonehead idea, actually...) to have your storage media & your playback medium combined into a single unit w/no backup of the media in a separate location.

Yet, that's how they design these things.

[king ubu]

That's quite simple: get an external HD... I don't know how many GB of MP3s I have (most of it from CDs I ripped and still own, some of it, I confess, OOP vinyl stuff from some great blogs, some of it MP3s from blogs where I actually own the CD, too, but figured it was less work not to do the ripping myself...)

Anyway, my "library" is much larger than the 30GB that fits onto my ipod, so I have it all on an external drive and can easily add and delete albms off the ipod - with WinAmp you can also back-up files you have only on your ipod to an external drive, very convenient (I used to purge stuff to get more space, and then was too lazy to rip again, so I asked around here and someone explained me how to do that with WinAmp).

[Noj]

In order to make it easy to move files on and off my iPod, I keep the ripped files on external drives and have them all backed up to DVD-R. At almost 5gb each, the DVD-Rs didn't take too long to burn.