Ethically purchasing used compact discs: ?

Yeah, but those are illegal in all countries, and I don't think there's a controversy that they're unethical.

The controversy is about copies done free of charge among friends for strictly private listening. This practice is legal in some areas and illegal in others, and there are differing opinions about its ethics.

 

Long time since I've seen a thread on this subject. The Ghost of Garth Brooks sounds like a good name for a band.

The length of time before something becomes 'public domain' and can be copied without fear of lawyers also used to stimulate long discussions here.

 

In the software business they solved this by adding a registration code which makes the actual disk containing the software useless for resale.

 

This is like complaining that Van Gogh should get a cut of his paintings that sold on for £ millions. Once you own physical media you have a legal right to sell it on but you can't sell it and keep a ripped file.

 

Yeah, there was a CDr craze in the 90s. However, it was a relatively small phenomenom compared to file sharing and easier to stamp out.

 

It was to only way to get the complete top 40 on one compilation.

 

There are far more less ethical practices going on that impact on artists - unauthorised versions of albums (pirated) on sale online, poor royalty rates paid by streaming companies and probably the worst of all, repackaged reissues where the original artist receives nothing or very little at all from the rights holder. Many bands signed contracts early in their careers when they were young and naive that in the long-term treated them poorly. Sadly, thanks to management advice and the system of advances the kids (and it is mostly kids) did not think of the situation they could be in 20 - 40 years time. This is one reason why you have so many older artists struggling financially even though they may have a good back catalogue. A lot of these people are still active in music but making less than you would in a regular career. Some are ok, if they bought property or did other investments when they were young, but not all did. The biggest kicker is that now they are older and wiser they are aware of the mistakes they made early on - but there will always be that question as to whether they would have got anywhere at all if they hadn't played the game at the time.

Another consequence of the lack of physical media versus streaming is that payments from record companies to some artists have dropped dramatically. There are some really odd things going on though, like an obscure album track suddenly bringing in actual money because it appears on a yoga playlist on a streaming platform. The problem there is the sheer unpredictability of it all.

Another point to end this rant is the power that corporations have over back catalogue. Artists may want to have some albums available, but these have been traded between companies several times and it can be a minefield working out who has the rights to certain albums. Some artists just re-release themselves and take the risk, but many won't but find it frustrating to track down masters or work out who owns what to make a release happen. Add to that the sometimes unpredictable nature of royalty payments artists are actually due, and it isn't easy at all. This means fans who want the music have to resort to buying used, or in the worst case scenario, file sharing, as so many titles are not even on the streaming platforms.

 

In that case, ban the sale of second hand goods.

 

Why, haven't you heard of K-Tel.

 

As I wrote yesterday on another thread:

Unfortunately many mass marketed reissues have a brand new mastering that sounds horrible. So, a used CD is often the only way to enjoy decent sound listening to an old release.

 

I suspect even K-Tel did not have access to all the hits. There are always licensing issues.

 

There is that, and also the desire for collectors to seek out different masterings or versions that only appear on initial releases for whatever reason. However in those cases I would argue that the collectors and die-hard fans tend to also support new releases as well.

 

They often missed some because not all labels gave permission. Sometimes cover versions were added.

 

This is ridiculous

 

Van Gogh needed an Albert Grossman or a Peter Grant to look after his interests.

 

I'm pretty sure album edits were often used instead of the single versions. K-Tel is a budget label, so probably not much thought went into their compilations.

 

Van Gogh was much like Nick Drake. Sold very little during his lifetime.

 

Exactly.

Yesterday, another fellow forum member, telling that since he bought "Exile on main street" many years ago, then the industry should have not charged anything for the multiple versions they released many years later. And he has a point.

I was also telling that I own too many copies of "Wish you were here". In that case I purchased new from a physical store (now sadly closed) a copy on cassette, a vinyl reissue, and at least 4-5 different CD versions in stores or online (including the one in the "Oh by the way" boxset). And then a lot of used copies since I began collecting.

Now, I don't get why "for ethical" reasons I shouldn't have bought many more (used) copies including the 2track version, not even available in Europe. And released when I was in kindergarten!

 

Who decides what art is valuable and collectible? See also Dali, and then Warhol.

 

And that's lucky for us, because of this most of his art is concentrated in two big museums. One originating from his family and one from a big collectors couple who bought a lot of his work after his death.

 

I haven't read the whole discussion so this may have been mentioned already - apologies if so - but my only issue with purchasing second hand is that, in doing so, I'm choosing to buy the second hand product instead of a new one. It's this decision that causes the artist/label etc to miss out on income.

But as has already been noted, that's no different to every other area of production, whether it be cars, furniture, books, clothing. One would presume that a "commuted sum" is included in the original purchase price to take account of lost revenue from potential future sales.

 

Plus it's better for the environment

 

I don't know if anyone has mentioned libraries and lending?

 

Yes, but they do pay book publishers for the right to lend out books. Don't know what is arranged for music

 

Not sure but worth mentioning that as a kid I borrowed a lot from libraries, mostly on cassette, and went on to buy most of the albums I liked. I couldn't make good copies of the tapes really. Also used to trade tapes by mail with friends in other countries and I ended up buying vinyl or CD of everything I received with the exception of a thrash mixtape including material by unsigned bands.