Ethically purchasing used compact discs: ?

Most of the objects in my home are used. These include LPs and CDs. I have kept things out of the landfill.

 

Streaming pays very little, and it costs very little to have access to a lot of music.

Buying physical media costs a lot more than streaming by a huge margin. Surely the industry set the price such that the first sale could compensate everyone fairly for the music contained on the vinyl/cd/tape (not saying that everyone was compensated fairly, just that they brought in enough money to go around). The argument that the industry deserves to get paid again and again in for the playback of music on that media is absurd. It doesn't matter who is listening to it, whether it's the original purchaser or someone to whom that person has sold or given the disc/tape.

If that's the serious position of anyone in the industry, they can refund my money, plus interest, on all of the discs I have purchased over the years and then charge back the pennies per hundreds of play the music on those discs has enjoyed. I can guarantee you that the net refund to me would be huge. I'll keep paying them a fraction of a penny whenever I decide to listen to a specific song and then everyone can be happy, right?

 

Interesting. Looks like approximately 10% of the forum population are lawyers.

 

Yes, property rights rule

Never gave it too much thought before.

I can kinda see both sides of the argument. However, I think the original purchase is what counts.

Once the artist/company gets the original payment/compensation for that particular disc, then that used disc should be free to be bought, traded, sold, etc.

Plus, I can't imagine the complication of every single used vinyl lp, cassette tape, 8 track tape, compact disc, etc being subject to reimbursement to the artist, label, etc. Especially the ones where it may be a one-off artist or a short-lived label that no longer exists. How could you possibly keep track of that and enforce it? Newer artists MAYBE. But the older stuff where the record keeping may be limited or even non-existent? Way too messy and likely impossible to do.

Also, in some cases, if the artist/company refuses to re-issue or (in some extreme cases) even acknowledge some releases, how else are we supposed to get them? (I'm looking at you, *********---I won't name the artist, but when all you get from the artist is one greatest hits comp after another rather than re-issuing their back-catalog because reasons, I'm gonna go the used route lol ).

Totally unnecessary disclaimer :
I am not a lawyer, nor do I have in-depth knowledge of property law/rights in terms of music. These are just my personal thoughts on the matter. So don't freak out okay?

 

Most of the CDs I buy are second hand these days: I don’t have a conscious about it.

I’m just happy to pick them off cheap!

 

Grab a rip from the internet.

 

A private trade is not “unethical”, the original creator/manufacturer got payed from the sale of the original product. What happens is they are simply denied a new sale, their property has not been stolen.

You also can’t assume if a person was banned from buying a used item that they would automatically buy the same product new. This is because the product may no longer be available new, or the new price is out of their budget. I almost always buy used CDs because I want a mastering that is out of print. If the company wants to put that old mastering back in print, I would be happy to buy new. Of course, they will never do this.

 

What's unethical is forcing a brickwalled remaster upon my ears which I can't listen to anyways even though you've taken my money. Used is essential in many cases.

 

How is buying used wrong ? If the POs copied the CDs prior to selling it, it's they who infringed the law, not me. I have tons of them. If I'd bought everything new my collection would be way smaller.

 

That'a a depressing thought, that I haven't got my money's worth out of some of my purchases. Some of them I've played once and given up on because they're rubbish (and yes, I am looking at my huge pile of Pet Shop Boys and Depeche Mode remixes here) : I'm happy for them to take this approach. I know I'll be up on the deal in the end. I'll probably get at least £10,000 back.

 

• No, it hurts the musical artists and rights holders
  
  4 vote(s)
  0.9%

• Yes, property rights rule
  
  384 vote(s)
  89.1%

• Other, it's complicated
  
  43 vote(s)
  10.0%

That's about as unanimous it will ever get on the internet and I'd wager that at least 1 of those 4 "no" votes accidentally clicked on the wrong radio button (circle). As muggles said appears 10% of the folks here are lawyers

If they are new and struggling then likley they are getting close to 0.00 per unit sold anyhow. More of a chance that buying used introduces you to their music and as result pays off far better for the artist if you go to see them perform.

 

House, furniture, paintings, books, CDs and even my second wife are used.
I do think there is a lack of tact in posting on a struggling musicians or authors twitter account that you just bought a used copy of their CD or book.....but it's legal and ethical.

 

I'm okay with anything that causes the music industry to crash and burn. Burn it all down.

 

Did your second wife marry you on the grounds of your condition being Near Mint or Very Good + ? .........

 

Duran lost a court case regarding this recently.
Depeche mode own their entire back catalogue.

 

And it is not the buyers concern if you indeed did those things prior to selling the CD. The idea that the buyers of used LPs and CDs should engage in any sort of due diligence to determine the copyright status of the contents of the particular disc they are buying is absurd in the extreme.

There is no ethical dilemma whatsoever in the buying of a used record or CD, and people trying to manufacture such need to get a life.

 

If you feel guilty after buying a used CD, find an address and send a check to whoever you feel that you have short-changed. But you’re kidding yourself if you think it only applies to recorded music. I make no such distinctions. And I feel no guilt. Chances are the labels and the artists management ripped them off far more than anyone else.

 

Here's my take, having been around the industry for a long time (as outside counsel): back when I started, in 1981, the majors would seed new acts with advances, typically recording funds (yes, they were recoupable against royalties) but I remember a lot of contracts for no-name bands that got funded. If one out of X actually hit, the record company might see a real return to offset the investment in the many acts that went nowhere.
Things changed when data compression and wider bandwidth became available. No doubt the majors just wanted to earn from legacy artists- and some could fault their A&R efforts to find new talent. But once Napster happened the cat was out of the bag for the mainstream -- people who didn't know code or much about computers could "file share." By that time, the industry was lagging behind on the digital delivery front and the consumers were all in favor of getting "free" music or paying only for the tracks they wanted. The theme was "stick it to the man."
But, the reality was, not everybody was a Metallica, or The Eagles or McCartney. As the majors declined in importance, Big Data became the gatekeeper. I don't think they are much better in terms of curation, remasters or the like. The "old" system had its flaws but it also was rich enough to support talent, tours and marketing.
There were also some people at the labels that cared a lot about music. Some were disruptors in their own right- like Chris Blackwell, at Island, who in the immediate post-psych period, signed a huge amount of talent that defined modern rock, pop and other genres. Thank Mo Ostin and the rest of that team at Warners for delivering an unbelievable roster of talent back in the '70s. And of course, other labels, large and small.
At this point, it's pretty much eat what you kill. The fact is, artists make music because they are committed, not because they are seeking to get rich. However, the ability to make a living doing your art is very hard to do, and I think the change in business models has made it even harder.
Technological change is a constant. I don't fault that, even though the changes tend toward convenience, not sound quality since it is a 'mass media' business.
The question then becomes how to support artists that you care about-- whether it means buying their content through authorized sites at a premium over "free," attending shows or doing something else to help support the artistic community. Pretty much every town, large or small, has various initiatives, from health care for artists to incubators for new talent. You can support that in your own way--
hell, you could decide to throw in with several friends for a party and hire a pretty good band to appear. There are a million ways to do this. Buying physical media is only one, increasingly small way that artists make money.

 

If your father was his own architect, his plans and drawings may constitute a type of copyright. A real estate agent told me that is why floor plans are rarely included in home for sale advertising. As always, rights may differ by state.

 

Paul is a billionaire.

 

Fortunately we don't have the death penalty in the UK.

 

Did you make sure to pay royalties to her 1st husband?

 

Correct, 1.2 billion last time I checked

 

It’s established law that you can buy and sell used CDs, books etc. That has been litigated and the outcome is well known. Yes, the person who tapes or rips their LP or Cd before selling is the wrong doer.

Streaming is not going away and will probably be the driving force in music delivery from here on out. So if you want to go fix something go fix the royalty payments on that.

If you can, go see live music as that is pretty much the only way most artists will be paid in the future.