Ethically purchasing used compact discs: ?

Discussion in 'Marketplace Discussions' started by Cherrycherry, Oct 26, 2019.

  1. I'm happy if somehow the artist gets paid if I buy a used cd or record.

    We could actually make this happen using a Cryptocurrency, the item could have a QR code on it something similar and it's whole history from day of manufacture can be recorded onto the blockchain, every time someone bought it they could scan the code and a small percentage of what they paid for it could get be recorded on the blockchain and also sent to the artists wallet instantly.

    No Banks, no middle men taking a cut, no ********!
    Peer to peer decentralized exchange

    Buy Bitcoin, you'll thank me for it one day, it can do things like this and so much more.
     
    RomanZ and kronning like this.
  2. RedRoseSpeedway

    RedRoseSpeedway Music Lover

    Location:
    Michigan
    Every time this thread pops up I say the same thing...it’s fine.
     
    Grant, BeatleJWOL and kronning like this.
  3. Chemguy

    Chemguy Forum Resident

    Exactly. I buy used everything.

    Okay, not underwear. So not everything.
     
  4. dumangl

    dumangl Senior Member

    In either case, purchasing a used CD is ethical. The buyer is not responsible for ensuring the ethical practices of the seller.

    I am sort of surprised that anyone would even pose this question.
     
    Grant, kronning, ricks and 2 others like this.
  5. Dave S

    Dave S Forum Resident

    Not even the same thing. Home taping made another copy. It never had much impact because most people knew only a few people who would want a copy.
     
    kronning likes this.
  6. Two Sheds

    Two Sheds Tea-sipping bad boy!

    If the release is out of print, you have no other options but to get a used CD/LP. It's about getting the songs, first and foremost.
     
  7. CraigVC

    CraigVC Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I agree with the argument that used CDs is the same ethical argument as buying anything used (cars, clothing, books, artwork, etc.).

    I would hate to live in a world where buying/selling used items were illegal.

    Imagine how strict the channels of commerce would have to be to prevent illegal purchase of any used products, and how much it would cost to maintain all of that overhead. Products would be more expensive (to cover the overhead of absolutely locking down all the channels of distribution to prevent any used product commerce) and people would have less opportunity to make a living and purchase products for themselves (new or used) because thinks of all of the commerce distribution channels that would be illegal: pawn shops, thrift shops, charitable donations (because the charity wouldn't be allowed to sell the donated items to generate operating cash), used car lots, junk yards for vehicles, auctions or sales for artwork or collectibles such as stamps, coins, etc. Would even the homeless person or child who creates something with other materials (purchased new, of course) and tries to sell them to raise money for a place to sleep that night or to get school supplies be arrested as criminal?

    Oooh, and what about real property (land, houses, etc.)? Should houses and land only be purchased through "official" channels, never "for sale by owner"? Could "used" land or houses ever be re-sold again in the aftermarket anyway, without again paying all the builders/contractors/manufacturers for all of the materials, appliances, etc., that were originally bought new when the house was first built?

    In my view, shifting the ethical boundary lines to disqualify re-selling, trading, or bartering used items like CDs (and to be fair, extending and applying the same logic to anything that is produced or created), making the buyers and sellers criminals, also requires a fundamental shift in what we generally consider legal/illegal in commerce and property ownership. I imagine tons of unintended consequences...

    Craig.
     
  8. CraigVC

    CraigVC Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    What should be done, ethically, with used CDs (or anything else) when someone dies? If the person who inherits the property doesn't see value in keeping it, and won't use it but it's taking up space, is the best ethical move to destroy the property if the alternative in selling each item used means tracking down the original producers (copyright holders, artists, etc.) of every single item to pay them again for royalties, etc.? I imagine such research and activity to get a cut of the used items' sales to every single original producer would be so prohibitively expensive that destroying the items (or throwing them away, or tossing them into a lake) would make much more ethical sense?
     
    Grant, kronning, Lamus and 1 other person like this.
  9. Yes, correct, I was coming at it from the seller’s point of view and that is not what the question addressed.
     
    kronning likes this.
  10. Carl Swanson

    Carl Swanson Forum Resident

    When you buy a used CD/LP/tape, send them a check for the amount they would have gotten off an original sale.
     
    Louise Boat, Grant, delmonaco and 3 others like this.
  11. John Rhett Thomas

    John Rhett Thomas Forum Resident

    Location:
    Macon, GA, USA
    But see, when someone dies, the music collection they spent their whole life amassing instantly becomes valueless and non-transferable. Especially the Garth albums. It is up to the eldest child to pay expenses for the safe and total demolition of the recorded works. I mean, we're talking ethics here!
     
  12. Ivan Aaron

    Ivan Aaron What Sells ≠ What Streams

    Location:
    San Diego
    I felt bad when I bought my used Maserati because Maserati made nothing from my purchase. :evil:
     
  13. Trader Joe

    Trader Joe Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Love buying used as long as its in good condition.
     
    kronning likes this.
  14. 4-2-7

    4-2-7 Forum Resident

    Location:
    SF Peninsula

    1. No, it hurts the musical artists and rights holders

      0 vote(s)
      0.0%
    2. *
      Yes, property rights rule
      138 vote(s)
      89.6%

    3. Other, it's compicated
      16 vote(s)
      10.4%
     
    kronning and ChristopherTeuma like this.
  15. all24bits

    all24bits Mature Adult

    Location:
    USA
    No, closer to about....well, for CDs....let's say 1987 just as a general year.....32 years? Wow.
     
  16. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    It isn't really an ethical question. The law in the U.S. has something called the "first sale doctrine" which says, in general terms, that once an authorized copy of a work embodying copyrighted matter has been sold with authority of the copyright owner, the copyright owner has no control over its further disposition. In other words, the right of "distribution of the copy" has been exhausted by the authorized first sale. This does not affect the copyright owner's right of reproduction. Thus, one may buy a used book, record, dvd, etc but may not make a copy of it (leaving aside all the arguments about home or private copying).
    The principle is recognized by most other countries as well (copyright laws are national in scope, confined to each country). The US Supreme Court ruled on this a few years ago in a case involving books made abroad under authority and imported for resale in the U.S. The Court applied the first sale doctrine to those 'foreign made' copies because they were made under authority of the copyright owner, who could no longer control their disposition. See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. - SCOTUSblog
    Our law, as currently embodied in §109 of the U.S. Act is now cluttered with various qualifiers regarding restored copyrights, lending services and the like but you can find it at Chapter 1 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office
    When §109 was first enacted in the 1976 Act, it was a little easier to read:

    § 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord

    (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
    (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(5), the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located.
    (c) The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) do not, unless authorized by the copyright owner, extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.
    Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541, Oct 19, 1976. (without subsequent amendments).
    ________________________

    No legal advice intended or offered. I'm retired and did this for a long time.
     
  17. Brodnation

    Brodnation The Future Never Dies because Tomorrow Never Knows

    Location:
    Canada
    So basically if I had to boil it down. Once you buy the item you can make copies for yourself and then sell the original completely legally
     
    Grant and kronning like this.
  18. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    The issue of your making a copy is something I avoided addressing. I'm not offering legal opinions here. I simply addressed the right of resale of an authorized copy.
     
    kronning likes this.
  19. Brodnation

    Brodnation The Future Never Dies because Tomorrow Never Knows

    Location:
    Canada
    Ok, opinion free

    Is it legal to make copies of something you purchased or otherwise owns for personal use only?
     
    kronning likes this.
  20. segue

    segue Forum Resident

    Location:
    Hawai'i
    This is s0 1986
     
    kronning likes this.
  21. Chris Schoen

    Chris Schoen Rock 'n Roll !!!

    Location:
    Maryland, U.S.A.
    Guess that's the advantage of physical media, if you bought it, it's yours. Physical media is not the problem.
    The bottom fell out for artists when digital files that could be downloaded came along.
     
    Imagine70, kronning and Dave S like this.
  22. ricks

    ricks Custom Title:

    Location:
    Nowhere Fast
    For the USA
    1854. Copyright Infringement -- First Sale Doctrine

    While I am sure the RIAA would love it for it to be, the elimination of First Sale Doctrine would cause untold severe damage to most economies - remember it covers far, far more than simply music.

    To quote the Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
     
    TonyCzar, Bryan Harris and kronning like this.
  23. Brodnation

    Brodnation The Future Never Dies because Tomorrow Never Knows

    Location:
    Canada
    So that’s a yes??
     
    kronning likes this.
  24. TimB

    TimB Pop, Rock and Blues for me!

    Location:
    Galion, Ohio USA
    A while back, record companies tried to get a ban on selling their products. Their argument being they owned the copyright. That did not make it through the court. Of course now it is pay to play that is replacing physical media. That they stand a better chance of getting their royalties
     
    BeatleJWOL and kronning like this.
  25. chervokas

    chervokas Forum Resident

    I don't see the ethical qualm at all. The entire enterprise of selling compact disks involves an economic arrangement where rights holders are compensated during the first sale.

    It's also explicitly provided for in US copyright law, known as the "first sale doctrine," and that's been explicitly in US law since 1976. The law reads, "the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."

    I'm not voting because I'm not sure it's really about property rights per se -- because the underlying intellectual property is property too.
     
    coepc, Imagine70, markp and 4 others like this.

Share This Page