Topic: Clearing out my CD collection - well, we are in a recession you know!

[andrewlee3]

Hi. I have a number of CDs I've collected over the years which are now cluttering up my home and I'd like to sell them before my moving house. Most of them are as if new and I still enjoy them as they're all on my iPod (I know, I've sold out) but needs must and all that! Anyway, I have a list if anyone wants it. It's quite an eclectic taste, ranging from opera to Chant but a lot of organ music. If you want the list, send me an email and I'll send it on to you.

[Maciek]

Legally (or morally), isn't there something wrong in keeping the ripped tracks while you are selling the original discs?

[Lethevich]

Legally (or morally), isn't there something wrong in keeping the ripped tracks while you are selling the original discs?

I used to think so, and the subject still confuses me somewhat, but have currently settled on this thought:

1. If you want the tracks ripped, why keep the trinket-CDs around.
2. If you aren't to sell them, then you must give them away - which is still "immoral", as the recepient is also depriving the labels of money by not paying for them.

Presumably if the seller does make money, then they might continue to buy music with this money as they have done before - in the original poster's case, perhaps as digital downloads which have a greater profit margin.

[DavidW]

I agree with Lethe but decided on the following strategy for going digital:

1. I don't like the recording--> sell and don't keep the digital copy.
2. I like the recording and it is available to buy as a download --> sell, don't keep the digital copy, buy the right copy.
3. I like the recording and it is not available to buy as a download --> sell and keep the digital copy.

That way my collection goes digital and when I can I put some money back into the industry's pockets.

[mc ukrneal]

Legally (or morally), isn't there something wrong in keeping the ripped tracks while you are selling the original discs?

Yes - you are getting use out of something you no longer own. As long as you are the only one listening, there probably will never be an issue, but that does not mean it is ok to do.

[Mirror Image]

Legally (or morally), isn't there something wrong in keeping the ripped tracks while you are selling the original discs?

I guess this depends on whether or not you value owning the original recording. If music is nothing more than a file on a computer to someone then keeping the CD with the liner notes, artwork, etc. isn't going to be anything that person will miss. But, if you're a person who likes owning the recordings and having something of value in their hands, then, no, you'll keep that recording. The thing to do, however, is keep the recordings you cherish and sale the ones you don't. I'm a collector, so I do like owning many different recordings of the same work for the simple fact that each interpretation will be a different view. This, in turn, helps me rekindle my passion for the music that I love. Coming back to a recording that you love is like a visit from an old friend you haven't seen in years. It's kind of unfamiliar at first, but then it's as if the two of you never lost sight of each other and things start to click again.

[PaulSC]

Coming back to a recording that you love is like a visit from an old friend you haven't seen in years. It's kind of unfamiliar at first, but then it's as if the two of you never lost sight of each other and things start to click again.

But does the recording feel the same way?

[DavidW]

If music is nothing more than a file on a computer to someone then keeping the CD with the liner notes, artwork, etc. isn't going to be anything that person will miss.

Not necessarily.  I know people that will only buy a download if it comes with the liner notes.  And there are others that scan in the liner notes when they rip the cd.  I personally choose the cover art for the music and consider it important.  And I browse through my collection using the cover art.

[Mirror Image]

But does the recording feel the same way?

 

[Todd]

Once you purchase the product you can do anything you want with it, within the bounds of the legal system. Which essentially means that you can do anything but mass produce the item for money.

I do believe this is the case.  Perhaps a lawyer on the forum can chime in if it's illegal.  It certainly does not strike me as immoral or unethical, either.

[Maciek]

But wait, you are re-selling (or giving away) the product (the CD you originally bought) - so how can you retain the right to "do anything you want with it"? Once you re-sell it, you don't own it anymore, right?

(Not sure if you can actually "do anything you want with it" when you actually do own it, but that's beside the point.)

[Todd]

Once you re-sell it, you don't own it anymore, right?

Looks like that is correct, after all.  (Google "mipi sell copied cds".)  Apparently, anyone who has copied any original source (78, LP, tape, CD, music file, etc) and discarded the original while keeping the copy is in fact breaking the law in the US.  Not sure about other countries.  On the plus side, as long as public distribution is not involved, the probability of getting caught for such actions is probably pretty darned slim.  I don't think the police (or worse yet, The Police) will be breaking down too many doors over this one.

[Todd]

There seems to be arguments on all sides of this

Of course, because lawyers gotta make a living.  As long as a person isn't distributing copies for free or for profit, I can't see this as being a major issue. 

[Todd]

except by industry lawyers.

Those are the ones to be worried about.

[(: premont :)]

As long as a person isn't distributing copies for free or for profit, I can't see this as being a major issue.

How do you distribute neither for free nor for profit?

[(: premont :)]

I don't think Todd meant distribution to mean p2p, but rather done on a larger scale where it could effectively affect profits.

Sounds very reasonable.

[Todd]

I don't think Todd meant distribution to mean p2p, but rather done on a larger scale where it could effectively affect profits.

I meant large scale file sharing (free) and actually selling physical copies or files (for profit).  Both may catch the attention of interested parties, and neither can be claimed to be legitimate under fair use.  Sharing a copy with a buddy or retaining a personal ripped copy of a disc that was sold off really doesn't matter a whole lot and won't really catch anyone's attention, even if the activities are illegal, or at least legally dubious.  Really, how many people have shared a copy of something with a friend or two over the past several decades?  Not me, of course, because that would be wrong, and I am opposed to wrong things. 

[Jay F]

Isn't this a "FS" thread?

[Gurn Blanston]

Isn't this a "FS" thread?

If you mean "file sharing" the answer is no. The OP wants to sell his disks, and the remainder of the posts are discussing the morality/legality of him ripping before selling. If copyright law now excludes the possibility of expressing an opinion on what is and isn't legal, then we're all in deep sh*t.

[Jay F]

If you mean "file sharing" the answer is no. The OP wants to sell his disks, and the remainder of the posts are discussing the morality/legality of him ripping before selling. If copyright law now excludes the possibility of expressing an opinion on what is and isn't legal, then we're all in deep sh*t.

I suspect you know I meant "For Sale."