Current trend: selling original CDs but keeping the mp3s

[Chas]

I'm not sure what you're asking - my philosophical commitment has been stated about 100 times already. Illegal digital copies of music are morally wrong, and don't help the artists who make the music that I like.

I'm asking you what time limits you think should be placed on musical copyright protection , and how such limits serve the public good that copyright protection advances .

Edited February 17, 2008 by Chas

[Aggie87]

What is the "public good"? Someone's right to have whatever they want, regardless of how they get it?

[Chas]

What is the "public good"? Someone's right to have whatever they want, regardless of how they get it?

The public good in this context is unfettered access to music without which a particular form of cultural deepening through accretion cannot occur . The public earns such free use by the grant of an unnatural monopoly to the copyright holder for a limited time. Musical copyright protection is only justified to the extent that it promotes the greatest amount of creative musical expression for all to enjoy . It's a measure of just how firmly the United States has been in the grip of individualist ideology recently , that people don't understand what public goods are anymore .

[Alexander]

I purchase CDs, rip them, than sell them to a used record store.

I have no moral qualms about this because I am paying for my music. If keeping the digital files is technically illegal, I don't care, because no one suffers for it. Were I to keep my CDs, nothing would change for anyone except that the used record store wouldn't have my CDs. Since selling and buying CDs is legal and ethical, no problem.

I also have a problem with people who just download music illegally and never buy it. But I don't have a problem with downloading illegally to sample a song or album and then buying it. I believe that practice leads to sales that would otherwise not happen. I've also known people who got into jazz that way.

What you are doing is effectively the same as the people who are downloading it illegally. You've created a copy of the music that is just as illegal to possess (since you no longer own the license to have that digital copy, which you sold with the CD) as the one that is downloaded illegally.

I'm sure the artist that produced that particular album would see that he's sold one copy of the CD, and yet you AND the person who bought your used cd now both have a copy of it. So he's sold one copy but two are out there.

Is that o.k. from the artist's perspective? Do you care whether the artist gets what he's due for those two copies of the music? Because he/she is not.

You and I have gone head-to-head over this issue before. I still argue that while it may be true that Take5 has created an extra copy of his purchased music, he has NOT deprived the artist of a sale. He purchased the music legally, and resold it. The person who bought his used copy has not contributed to the artist's royalties because he bought a used CD. So here we have a case where two people have owned one CD (at different times, granted) but the artist was only compensated once. This is true regardless of whether any illegal copying has taken place. Since the artist WAS compensated by Take5's purchase, please explain to me how this artist has suffered by Take5 keeping the copied files after selling the CD. I know the artist isn't being compensated by the second copy, but he also hasn't been compensated for the second sale of his CD. You can only logically make your argument if you ALSO argue that buying and selling used CDs is also unethical, since it also deprives the artist of a sale.

[Quincy]

please explain to me how this artist has suffered by Take5 keeping the copied files after selling the CD. I know the artist isn't being compensated by the second copy, but he also hasn't been compensated for the second sale of his CD. You can only logically make your argument if you ALSO argue that buying and selling used CDs is also unethical, since it also deprives the artist of a sale.

No, you are failing to understand very basic SUPPLY & demand. One more time...

The person who sold the CD but kept the mp3 has increased supply artificially. By putting another used copy into the chain it increases the likelihood that a consumer will again buy the used copy, whereas if the used copy wasn't in the store perhaps the consumer would buy the new copy instead. This is the way things worked before burners & buying online was common. And to a certain degree, it still holds true today. I'll repeat this because repetition sometimes increases the chance that learning takes place. If there aren't used copies of "Title," then if the consumer is impatient then said consumer buys a new disc in the store of "Title." The more discs that end up in the used bin, the less chance that artists get compensated by consumers who have no other alternatives or are impatient. It should also be noted that often store clerks will point out that something is available used, and that's because the mark up is so much better with used than with new discs. I've had this happen several times where I missed seeing something in the used section, or it hadn't been put out yet.

[ejp626]

No, you are failing to understand very basic SUPPLY & demand. One more time...

The person who sold the CD but kept the mp3 has increased supply artificially. By putting another used copy into the chain it increases the likelihood that a consumer will again buy the used copy, whereas if the used copy wasn't in the store perhaps the consumer would buy the new copy instead. This is the way things worked before burners & buying online was common.

And yet, I don't think we have any hard figures on how much more prevalent the reselling of CDs is now that ripping is possible (i.e. making this artificially inflated) versus people that just got tired of a CD, so reselling it was "legitimate." Sure, there are a handful of people who brag about it, but there is just as much anecdotal evidence about people who won't touch the stuff. Frankly, if there was such an epidemic of reselling CDs (as opposed to illegal downloading which is certainly an epidemic), I would expect more used CD stores rather than finding them all shut up. (Granted this is Chicago where rents have been increasing.)

[Chas]

And yet, I don't think we have any hard figures on how much more prevalent the reselling of CDs is now that ripping is possible (i.e. making this artificially inflated) versus people that just got tired of a CD, so reselling it was "legitimate." Sure, there are a handful of people who brag about it, but there is just as much anecdotal evidence about people who won't touch the stuff. Frankly, if there was such an epidemic of reselling CDs (as opposed to illegal downloading which is certainly an epidemic), I would expect more used CD stores rather than finding them all shut up. (Granted this is Chicago where rents have been increasing.)

The fact that used CD shops are disappearing is not evidence of a decline in the volume of used sales , but merely a consequence of those sales migrating online . I'm willing to grant Quincy's claim that the ability to make digital copies results in a greater volume of used CD sales relative to new sales , than would otherwise be the case .This despite the fact that similar misgivings about home taping weren't borne out . They weren't borne out largely because most people saw value in the music's packaging , a packaging which was not easily reproducible . Today this is simply no longer the case . That being said , I cannot understand the continuing fixation with second-order empirical questions when the first-order question viz. , whether current copyright durations can be justified , goes unexamined . Especially with respect to older recordings , you can't fully understand the willingness of people to engage in illegal behavior without exploring that question .

[ejp626]

The fact that used CD shops are disappearing is not evidence of a decline in the volume of used sales , but merely a consequence of those sales migrating online . I'm willing to grant Quincy's claim that the ability to make digital copies results in a greater volume of used CD sales relative to new sales , than would otherwise be the case .This despite the fact that similar misgivings about home taping weren't borne out . They weren't borne out largely because most people saw value in the music's packaging , a packaging which was not easily reproducible . Today this is simply no longer the case .

While it is plausible that reselling has increased, I would still like proof that it is 5x or 10x or 100x worse than it was in the home taping era (unlike our politicians who make laws from a fact-free zone). As I said before, the law balances all kinds of things, in this case notions of personal property rights vs. reimbursements of artists/labels. If society only cared about the later, then used CDs would be illegal. The same could be said for copyright issues.

[Aggie87]

What is the "public good"? Someone's right to have whatever they want, regardless of how they get it?

The public good in this context is unfettered access to music without which a particular form of cultural deepening through accretion cannot occur . The public earns such free use by the grant of an unnatural monopoly to the copyright holder for a limited time. Musical copyright protection is only justified to the extent that it promotes the greatest amount of creative musical expression for all to enjoy . It's a measure of just how firmly the United States has been in the grip of individualist ideology recently , that people don't understand what public goods are anymore .

I don't believe in "unfettered access" to music, then. Being able to "own" music isn't for the public good in the sense that access to health care is, and I don't see how that can be argued. Music is the creation of individual artists, not a public right.

Justifying illegal behavior by saying it's for the public good is just as much an individualist ideology as anything. In fact, it's a copout.

[Aggie87]

You and I have gone head-to-head over this issue before. I still argue that while it may be true that Take5 has created an extra copy of his purchased music, he has NOT deprived the artist of a sale. He purchased the music legally, and resold it. The person who bought his used copy has not contributed to the artist's royalties because he bought a used CD. So here we have a case where two people have owned one CD (at different times, granted) but the artist was only compensated once. This is true regardless of whether any illegal copying has taken place. Since the artist WAS compensated by Take5's purchase, please explain to me how this artist has suffered by Take5 keeping the copied files after selling the CD. I know the artist isn't being compensated by the second copy, but he also hasn't been compensated for the second sale of his CD. You can only logically make your argument if you ALSO argue that buying and selling used CDs is also unethical, since it also deprives the artist of a sale.

My whole thesis in this thread (and previous ones) has been about illegal copies of the music, not the buying and selling of used cds. I buy and sell used cds in person and on this board, and don't have a problem with doing so.

Again, buying and selling used cds is no different conceptually from buying a used car. Two people have owned one car (at different times, as you say), but the manufacturer has only been compensated once.

The difference is that the first owner wasn't able to keep a copy of the car when he sold it. If he had, then 2 cars would be in existence, and Ford only got paid for one. They'd be screaming bloody murder legally if that were possible.

Some people choose to buy new cars for various reasons, some people choose to buy used. Same with CDs. The artist WAS compensated for a CD that is out on the market, just like Ford was for that car. The fact that both change hands on the used market DOESN'T change the FACT that the car and cd both generated compensation for the creator on the first sale. At that point the artist/manufacturer's compensation is over. The secondary market is not part of their purview.

Since the artist WAS compensated by Take5's purchase, please explain to me how this artist has suffered by Take5 keeping the copied files after selling the CD.

Again (and again and again...) the artist was compensated by the legitimate purchase of the first CD. That it changes hands later on is of no consequence - the artist has been compensated. The fact that Take5 created an extra copy and didn't compensate the artist is the problem. Take5 has the right to possess digital copies of the CD while he owns it, but that right or license is allowed only to the owner of the CD, not any previous owner - which is what Take5 became when he sold the CD.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Aggie87

[A Lark Ascending]

Whilst having unfettered access to music may not be a fundamental human right, I'd have thought being able to purchase legitimately historically significant music might be considered in the public interest. If Universal, for example choose to sit on what is in their vaults, they might not be denying people their rights - but they are certainly closing something of value for their own motives.

With some creativity, the big companies really could do something about this. Take the RCA Ellington Centennial. I'm lucky, I've got it. But there are plenty of people coming to jazz and to Ellington in particular who weren't around when it was available. The music must exist in digital form in their vaults from the 2000 release.

So why not make it available for sale digitally, permanently? This could be done in a number of options:

a) Down load the lot!

b) Download each individual disc.

c) Download specific tracks (I've no problem them charging a bit more there to encourage buying a full disc or a full set).

Even more creatively, they could set up a number of 'best of' download options for those not requiring everything but wanting something representative.

This might not stop the general unknowing public from buying a cheapo compilation - but it would be a first choice for people with a real interest in jazz. And with a bit of canny marketing, accompanying downloadable notes, photos etc it would become a first choice to all but those who just want the cheapest version available.

I can understand that many companies won't want to invest the work in such a deal - well, maybe this is the way for a dedicated operation like Mosaic to move into in the future.

But it will take a change in outlook from the companies who still continue to see what is in their vaults as a potential financial asset in the right circumstances rather than a set of treasures that should be available to the public at a fair cost.

I know this bears no relation to how capitalism works!

[Quincy]

And yet, I don't think we have any hard figures on how much more prevalent the reselling of CDs is now that ripping is possible (i.e. making this artificially inflated) versus people that just got tired of a CD, so reselling it was "legitimate." Sure, there are a handful of people who brag about it, but there is just as much anecdotal evidence about people who won't touch the stuff. Frankly, if there was such an epidemic of reselling CDs (as opposed to illegal downloading which is certainly an epidemic), I would expect more used CD stores rather than finding them all shut up. (Granted this is Chicago where rents have been increasing.)

The thing is that the used CDs at $4 to $9, while a better deal than new CDs at $12-17, are competing against free music too. $4 to $9 is still a whole lot more than free.

I can't offer hard facts, but I can tell you I see a lot more "good stuff" in used racks then I did before burners. The Dylan '66, Costello Rhinos, Pavement reissues, Monk remasterd Columbias, sometimes large chunks of an artists catalog (such as Zappa) will pop up at one local store. It used to be a rare thing to find recent reissues in the racks, usually I'd just find the older issue when the newer reissue hit the market. Now honestly, anything goes. Whether it's due to increased CD theft & reselling because of lottery ticket addicts (just a joke vs. the local cops, who blame all theft on meth), or burners "flipping" discs, I can't tell you.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Quincy

[GA Russell]

I'm in agreement with Aggie's view of moral duties except for one point. (I do think, however, that Aggie is discussing moral duty and not the law when he discusses a license to enjoy recorded music. I'm not aware of any law or court decision which has stated the law as Aggie describes it.)

Does anyone know what the length of copyright was in the US back in the 50s?

My concern is with the retroactive nature of Sonny Bono's law.

For example, let's say that the length of copyright in 1952 was 25 years. When the recording was made in 1952, both the artist and the record company had no expectation of any ownership rights after 1977. Their efforts and money expended were predicated on having the exclusive right to compensation and ownership for 25 years.

When Sonny Bono came along, the copyright was extended retroactively. That's a legal matter. But I don't see it as a moral matter. If the record company and the artist agreed to a 25-year deal, I don't feel that the consumer has a moral duty to pay compensation after 25 years just because the Congress says that the artist and record company have a legal right.

That said, I have no problem behaving as if the consumer does have the moral duty. I have never illegally downloaded a song, and I don't expect to.

edit for typo

Edited February 17, 2008 by GA Russell

[Chas]

What is the "public good"? Someone's right to have whatever they want, regardless of how they get it?

The public good in this context is unfettered access to music without which a particular form of cultural deepening through accretion cannot occur . The public earns such free use by the grant of an unnatural monopoly to the copyright holder for a limited time. Musical copyright protection is only justified to the extent that it promotes the greatest amount of creative musical expression for all to enjoy . It's a measure of just how firmly the United States has been in the grip of individualist ideology recently , that people don't understand what public goods are anymore .

I don't believe in "unfettered access" to music, then. Being able to "own" music isn't for the public good in the sense that access to health care is, and I don't see how that can be argued. Music is the creation of individual artists, not a public right.

Justifying illegal behavior by saying it's for the public good is just as much an individualist ideology as anything. In fact, it's a copout.

You don't seem to understand that copyright protection exists to benefit the consumers of art not as a recognition of some pre-existing natural right that artists have in preventing others from copying their work . Even if you believe that artists have some such Lockean right in their original work , it doesn't follow that they have the same type of right to prohibit copying of that work . It is for this reason that The Constitution says , " Congress shall have the power " to grant copyright protection , not " Congress must grant copyright protection " . A society is free to strike any deal it wants with artists , calibrating copyright durations to ensure , not the greatest amount of creativity per se , but the greatest public enjoyment of that creativity . Copyright protection grants time-limited privileges to artists only as a means to this public good and never for their sake . Retroactive extension of copyright protection is particularly egregious , for there is absolutely no public benefit in such an extension , given that it can't possibly result in retroactively increasing the amount of creativity to be enjoyed by all .

Edited February 18, 2008 by Chas

[Alexander]

You and I have gone head-to-head over this issue before. I still argue that while it may be true that Take5 has created an extra copy of his purchased music, he has NOT deprived the artist of a sale. He purchased the music legally, and resold it. The person who bought his used copy has not contributed to the artist's royalties because he bought a used CD. So here we have a case where two people have owned one CD (at different times, granted) but the artist was only compensated once. This is true regardless of whether any illegal copying has taken place. Since the artist WAS compensated by Take5's purchase, please explain to me how this artist has suffered by Take5 keeping the copied files after selling the CD. I know the artist isn't being compensated by the second copy, but he also hasn't been compensated for the second sale of his CD. You can only logically make your argument if you ALSO argue that buying and selling used CDs is also unethical, since it also deprives the artist of a sale.

My whole thesis in this thread (and previous ones) has been about illegal copies of the music, not the buying and selling of used cds. I buy and sell used cds in person and on this board, and don't have a problem with doing so.

But buying a used CD DOES deprive the artist of a sale. If the used CD didn't exist (as has been pointed out elsewhere), the potential consumer would HAVE to buy new, and the sale of a new CD is a benefit to the artist. Take5 may not be "entitled" to his copied files, but I don't see how the mere existence of those files constitues an actual injury to the artist. Now, if Take5 is making those copied files available for download via a file-sharing service, then I can see how this hurts the artist. It does not merely deprive the artist of one sale (as the sale of a used CD does), but potentially deprives him of hundreds, possibly thousands of sales. For this very reason, I personally condemn illegal file-sharing. But if Take5 is simply keeping the files for his own use, his actions affect nobody, not even the artist who remains competely ignorant of the files' existence.

I have a feeling that if they could make the sales of used cars illegal, btw, auto manufacturers would do so in a heartbeat. Again, if I buy a used car (as my wife did not too long ago), the manufacturer has not benefitted in any way from that sale. If I could not buy a used car, I would have to buy a new car: a positive benefit to the automaker. Put it this way: Two men are in the market for a car. One buys a used car. The other steals a car. In both cases, the manufacturer was compensated only for the original sales of the respective cars. From the manufacturer's point of view, is there any appreciable difference between the used car and the stolen car? I'm not talking about the point of view of the guy whose car was stolen or from the criminal justice system which has a vested interest in catching the car thief. I'm talking ONLY about the automaker. Is there a difference to them between the used car and the stolen car? Did they benefit from either?

[Chas]

You and I have gone head-to-head over this issue before. I still argue that while it may be true that Take5 has created an extra copy of his purchased music, he has NOT deprived the artist of a sale. He purchased the music legally, and resold it. The person who bought his used copy has not contributed to the artist's royalties because he bought a used CD. So here we have a case where two people have owned one CD (at different times, granted) but the artist was only compensated once. This is true regardless of whether any illegal copying has taken place. Since the artist WAS compensated by Take5's purchase, please explain to me how this artist has suffered by Take5 keeping the copied files after selling the CD. I know the artist isn't being compensated by the second copy, but he also hasn't been compensated for the second sale of his CD. You can only logically make your argument if you ALSO argue that buying and selling used CDs is also unethical, since it also deprives the artist of a sale.

My whole thesis in this thread (and previous ones) has been about illegal copies of the music, not the buying and selling of used cds. I buy and sell used cds in person and on this board, and don't have a problem with doing so.

But buying a used CD DOES deprive the artist of a sale. If the used CD didn't exist (as has been pointed out elsewhere), the potential consumer would HAVE to buy new, and the sale of a new CD is a benefit to the artist. Take5 may not be "entitled" to his copied files, but I don't see how the mere existence of those files constitues an actual injury to the artist. Now, if Take5 is making those copied files available for download via a file-sharing service, then I can see how this hurts the artist. It does not merely deprive the artist of one sale (as the sale of a used CD does), but potentially deprives him of hundreds, possibly thousands of sales. For this very reason, I personally condemn illegal file-sharing. But if Take5 is simply keeping the files for his own use, his actions affect nobody, not even the artist who remains competely ignorant of the files' existence.

Alexander , as discussed a few posts back , the existence of the copied files constitutes an injury to the artist in the sense that a ripped CD is more likely to end up in the used CD market with the result being more used CD sales at the expense of new CD sales . There is no inconsistency in sanctioning the existence of a used CD market while wanting to minimize such a market's impact on new CD sales .

I guess I should have started my own thread , for my attempts to steer this one towards the REAL issue behind all this has failed .

[Alexander]

You and I have gone head-to-head over this issue before. I still argue that while it may be true that Take5 has created an extra copy of his purchased music, he has NOT deprived the artist of a sale. He purchased the music legally, and resold it. The person who bought his used copy has not contributed to the artist's royalties because he bought a used CD. So here we have a case where two people have owned one CD (at different times, granted) but the artist was only compensated once. This is true regardless of whether any illegal copying has taken place. Since the artist WAS compensated by Take5's purchase, please explain to me how this artist has suffered by Take5 keeping the copied files after selling the CD. I know the artist isn't being compensated by the second copy, but he also hasn't been compensated for the second sale of his CD. You can only logically make your argument if you ALSO argue that buying and selling used CDs is also unethical, since it also deprives the artist of a sale.

My whole thesis in this thread (and previous ones) has been about illegal copies of the music, not the buying and selling of used cds. I buy and sell used cds in person and on this board, and don't have a problem with doing so.

But buying a used CD DOES deprive the artist of a sale. If the used CD didn't exist (as has been pointed out elsewhere), the potential consumer would HAVE to buy new, and the sale of a new CD is a benefit to the artist. Take5 may not be "entitled" to his copied files, but I don't see how the mere existence of those files constitues an actual injury to the artist. Now, if Take5 is making those copied files available for download via a file-sharing service, then I can see how this hurts the artist. It does not merely deprive the artist of one sale (as the sale of a used CD does), but potentially deprives him of hundreds, possibly thousands of sales. For this very reason, I personally condemn illegal file-sharing. But if Take5 is simply keeping the files for his own use, his actions affect nobody, not even the artist who remains competely ignorant of the files' existence.

Alexander , as discussed a few posts back , the existence of the copied files constitutes an injury to the artist in the sense that a ripped CD is more likely to end up in the used CD market with the result being more used CD sales at the expense of new CD sales . There is no inconsistency in sanctioning the existence of a used CD market while wanting to minimize such a market's impact on new CD sales .

I guess I should have started my own thread , for my attempts to steer this one towards the REAL issue behind all this has failed .

So the problem is ripping CDs to a computer hard drive? That's funny, I've ripped dozens of CDs to my computer, yet I've never sold one of them...

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

What is the "public good"? Someone's right to have whatever they want, regardless of how they get it?

The public good in this context is unfettered access to music without which a particular form of cultural deepening through accretion cannot occur . The public earns such free use by the grant of an unnatural monopoly to the copyright holder for a limited time. Musical copyright protection is only justified to the extent that it promotes the greatest amount of creative musical expression for all to enjoy . It's a measure of just how firmly the United States has been in the grip of individualist ideology recently , that people don't understand what public goods are anymore .

I don't believe in "unfettered access" to music, then. Being able to "own" music isn't for the public good in the sense that access to health care is, and I don't see how that can be argued. Music is the creation of individual artists, not a public right.

Justifying illegal behavior by saying it's for the public good is just as much an individualist ideology as anything. In fact, it's a copout.

You don't seem to understand that copyright protection exists to benefit the consumers of art not as a recognition of some pre-existing natural right that artists have in preventing others from copying their work . Even if you believe that artists have some such Lockean right in their original work , it doesn't follow that they have the same type of right to prohibit copying of that work . It is for this reason that The Constitution says , " Congress shall have the power " to grant copyright protection , not " Congress must grant copyright protection " . A society is free to strike any deal it wants with artists , calibrating copyright durations to ensure , not the greatest amount of creativity per se , but the greatest public enjoyment of that creativity . Copyright protection grants time-limited privileges to artists only as a means to this public good and never for their sake . Retroactive extension of copyright protection is particularly egregious , for there is absolutely no public benefit in such an extension , given that it can't possibly result in retroactively increasing the amount of creativity to be enjoyed by all .

I entirely agree with you on this Chas. But I wonder:

a) what proportion of Americans actually do understand the concept of public good; and

b) what proportion of American lawmakers do.

If this proportion is so small as to be virtually nonexistent, is it still correct to argue that laws are passed for the purpose of achieving public good, rather than achieving some benefits for those who can bribe their way into the charmed circle?

MG

[Chas]

I entirely agree with you on this Chas. But I wonder:

a) what proportion of Americans actually do understand the concept of public good; and

b) what proportion of American lawmakers do.

If this proportion is so small as to be virtually nonexistent, is it still correct to argue that laws are passed for the purpose of achieving public good, rather than achieving some benefits for those who can bribe their way into the charmed circle?

Well , I was speaking normatively not descriptively of course .

The Sonny Bono " Copyright Term Extension Act " was such a shameful sop to the big media corporations , that it was passed by voice vote , by congressmen too craven to have their individual votes recorded . What's worse is that it's not just citizens and congressmen who have lost sight , willfully or otherwise , of the public good , but also the Supreme Court justices who voted 7-2 to uphold the Bono retroactive copyright extension .