Used CDs and mp3s

Cafe Society
1

(This may be more appropriate for IMHO, but since it involved music, I put it here. Mods, please move if you disagree.)

I bought a couple of used CDs the other day and, as I usually do when I buy new CDs, I ripped them into my iTunes folder.

As I was doing this, I got to thinking: whoever had the CD before me probably ripped it into his/her iTunes folder (or the equivalent). So there are likely at least two mp3s out there of the same CD, even though the artist only received royalties from one. Someone here is stealing music – either the original owner, or me.

After some more thought, I concluded that it wasn’t me (convenient, eh?). It seems to me that once somebody sells their CD, they also sell all rights to the songs therein, and, in theory, should delete the mp3s from their hard drive. Practically, however, I cannot imagine anyone actually doing this, unless they just got tired of the music. Even then it seems unlikely they’d go to the trouble of actively deleting it when they can just choose not to listen to it.

So, while on the one hand I can argue that whatever the seller of the CD does or doesn’t do is not my concern, on the other hand it feels as though I may be supporting bad behavior.

What do you all think?

2

Maybe, maybe not. You don’t know.

I have around 400 CDs in my collection. i just got my very first mp3 player for my birthday a few days ago – an iPod Nano. I haven’t ripped any of my CDs into iTunes yet. In fact, it’s highly unlikely I’ll rip all 400. It would take forever, and some of them I’m frankly not all that interested in nowadays. In fact, the ones I won’t rip are precisely the ones most likely to end up in a used CD store.

3

The original owner should delete all the mp3s or copies of the CD upon selling said CD. If the original owner does not, she/he has illegal copies.

It’s like books on tape you download from the library. After the expiration date (for the non DRM’d files), the agreement specifically says, you are to delete any copies from your hardrive or portable players.

4

Yeah, like others said, Meltdown, you’re only responsible for deleting the mp3’s off your hard drive if you sell your copy of the CD. What the previous owner did or didn’t do is his responsibility. He may have not even burned any copies to his hard drive at all. It’s not inconceivable. But once you buy the CD you can burn away to your heart’s content, as long as you keep the CD in your possession, even locked away in a back room somewhere. And as long as you don’t distribute any copies.

5

I have lots of CDs, mostly purchased used, and I’ve ripped most of them to my hard drive. But I would never sell a CD that I had ripped if I still liked it. You never know when virtual music is going to disappear in a hard drive crash, an accidental deletion, or whatever. Or when I might decide a want a higher-quality or lossless digital copy for some reason.

So, if your original owner was anything like me, he’d only sell the CD if he didn’t want the music anymore. Granted, not everyone feels this way, but some do.

6

Thanks for all the responses – and I agree with you. I just have a feeling (not supported by any actual evidence) that most people are not as diligent as you folks. I could very well be wrong.

7

I’d say most people aren’t that diligent. Either they are unaware of the laws or figure nobody’s going to police their hard drive for mp3’s as long as they don’t share them. I plan to keep my CD’s in case of a hard drive failure or MP3 player failure. but if I got rid of them or sold them, I’d probably burn copies or keep my mp3 files.

8

Selling a used CD is stealing all by itself. Artists don’t get a dime from it.

9

Legally, it’s not; it may be in your concept of morality/fairness, however. People resell all kinds of used things - books, software, furniture, clothing, dishware, and so on.

10

I was commenting on the logic of the OP:

Just the act of selling the CD does the same thing. Two people bought it, but the artist only received royalties from one. Therefore keeping the mp3s doesn’t do anything to further this injustice.

11

But that’s the same with any item out there. You sell it, the original owner doesn’t get money for it. This is considered perfectly ethical. You lose something (access to the item) to gain something (monetary compensation).

The problem comes in with the unauthorized copy. You no longer lose something when you sell. You got both the money and the item. You’ve now got something not only without paying the creator, but without paying anyone.

12

I don’t know why suddenly people are all worried about this.

When I was a kid, we copied our albums onto cassette. Everyone did. Nobody was worried about copyrights or royalties then. In fact, if we were really nice, we might even run off a copy for a friend of ours, and again no one worried about any legal ramifications; if we didn’t feel like running off another copy, we might even lend the album to our friend so that they could tape it at their leisure, instead. No money changed hands – we shared, for free.

Now, take an album like Hotel California or Rumors, which were both pretty hot in 1977, when I was 16. I bought both on vinyl when they came out, as did many of my friends. In a lot of cases, we also bought it on cassette or 8-track, depending on what was playable in the car, and I do know of some cases where people actually bought both formats, since they might have had an 8 track in the car, but the main stereo in the house (usually dad’s) had a cassette deck. Of course, when CD’s came out, a lot of people bought them in that format as well. Now, Warner and Electra had no problem coming out with these different formats and racking up multi sales from the same album, because we were at the mercy of the technology then, and they knew it.

It’s funny, though, now, when the shoe is on the other foot, and the technology has accelerated past them, and it’s in our favour, suddenly, that the record companies are all upset about people making copies. Especially since they had it “their way” for so long.

What we were doing back then was no different than what people are doing now, but because they can’t post the same sizeable profits these days, it’s suddenly a “bad thing”. It’s not our fault that they couldn’t fathom the possibilities of the digital revolution, and the possibility that the worm would turn.

Of course, now, they want to drag the artist into it and admonish us for “picking his pocket”, but they will never admit that they did so first with exploitive contracts back in the good old days, will they.

What a bunch of hypocrites they are.

Hey, I admit it. I download with impunity, and I don’t feel guilty about it at all. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

13

Preach it, Winnie! :smiley:

14

It is very different. As a kid you made lossy copies, meaning there was still value in and incentive to buy the actual album: to get the better quality recording. Nowadays you can make perfect digitial copies, meaning there is no incentive to buy the actual CD. Hell, you can even print out full color jewel cases with the actual cover art if you wanted to live in the 90s.

Note: I happily ignore copyright laws; I just don’t rationalize it as being the right thing to do.

15

Besides the fidelity issue, the other difference between ripping CDs and making cassette copies is the generation issue: A cassette copy is not going to spawn more copies, and copies of copies, and so on. It’s pretty much a one-generation deal and therefore self-limiting. An mp3, however, can spawn any number of generations of copies with no losses. So it scares the publishers a hell of a lot more.

16

Not so, artists are only entitled to profit from the first sale, not any further sales.

Think of it like this, suppose I build a house and sell it for $100,000. Once I sell it, that is it, it’s over. If the buyer sells it again for $200,000, the original builder doesn’t get a cut of the new profit.

Artist record a song and they are entitled to sell it ONCE. That is it. They don’t get royaltites from every sale.

This line of thinking once led to some CDs being DRM’d (digital rights management) basically what it said was that you are only renting the CD, not buying it. This is fine if it is clear and unambiguous, that you’re not getting music but only the right to listen to it.

This if you remember lead to Sony installing software on computers to control the DRM and it started running amok and hurting Windows

17

Again, I was pointing out this exact thing, which undermines the reasoning in given in the OP as to why keeping the copies is stealing. (“Because the artist only gets royalties once.”)

PS: Past tense of lead is led.

18

In Winnipeg, I think the major difference is the scale of the copying and redistribution. Back in the day, it took longer to copy a cassette than it does to rip an MP3, you had to go through the whole copying process every time you wished to make a new one and the final product was not quite as good as the original. You might put in the time and effort to make 100 copies for family and friends but you’d be unusual. Not many people spent that much time and effort on creating and redistributing copies. Your friends could make copies of their copies to give to their friends but each copy-of-a-copy is slightly degraded and there comes a point where most reasonable people would think the quality was too poor to bother with.

These days, it takes minutes to rip a CD to your hard drive, and after that you can leave it connected to the internet 24 hours a day where any person in the world with an internet connection can access it. You will never even know the people who obtain a copy from you. Each copy that is made is perfect and identical, so there’s no degradation in quality for the people who download from you, or the people who download it from them. You don’t need to purchase media to copy it onto. The factors that limited distribution back in the days of cassettes are gone and distribution is essentially limitless.

19

Actually, you are probably violating copyright laws when you make a copy from your CD to put into iTunes. It is the copying that is the violation, not what you intend to do with it. I think with computer software, if you read your agreement, making one copy as a backup is ok. Making more is not.

Copyright law also technically prohibits making “xerox” copies from books and other publications. Yet everyone does it for convenience. You need a page for this, a page for that. You’re not selling it. Still doesn’t make it right.

Not judging, just saying…

20

Yes, copyright laws and drug laws (specifically re: marijuana) have made me a lifelong criminal, and as such, as an adult I have approximately zero respect for the law. I obey my own personal morailty, and if it happens to coincide with the law, then great. If not, I couldn’t care less.