Jump to content
IGNORED

Getting rid of CD's?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Audio_ELF said:

Arguments around friends listening with and without you are just methods to justify copying CDs.

 

Nope, it's not. Friends listening to music on your CD in your house/car or your rip of that CD in your house/car is 100% ok. 

 

It only becomes dubious when you make or allow them to make a copy. 

Synergistic Research Powercell UEF SE > Sonore OpticalModule (LPS-1.2 & DXP-1A5DSC) > EtherRegen (SR4T & DXP-1A5DSC) > (Sablon 2020 LAN) Innuos PhoenixNet > Muon Streaming System > Grimm Audio MU1 server > (Sablon AES) Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC > PS Audio M1200 monoblocks > Salk Sound Supercharged Songtowers

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

As you hinting toward my post let me comment if you do not mind. I've been comfortable always with hypothesis which tells Western world not only appreciates, but welcomes the differences in IQ (small digits in my case). Not anymore?

Hi @AnotherSpin

 

Apologies if I offended you. 

 

I will reiterate my take on this. Basically act in good faith and you won't end up in trouble. 

 

Aquiring music files you haven't paid for, sharing files or buying CDs ripping and then selling/returning is clearly bad faith and you might (but probably won't) end up in trouble. 

 

Playing your own legally acquired music at home, in the company of guests or even letting your guest listen to (but not copy) your music. Regardless of whether you are present. This is still good faith in my book. The musician should be happy you are showcasing their music and potentially inviting others to purchase their products. 

 

How accurately the laws in respective countries reflects this doesn't really matter. It's about being able to say you acted reasonably and in good conscience. Beyond that its a purely academical debate. 

 

Just my thoughts and no offence intended. 

 

Anyway - gotta run. Sony are at my door and want to discuss the veracity of my NAS drive :P

Synergistic Research Powercell UEF SE > Sonore OpticalModule (LPS-1.2 & DXP-1A5DSC) > EtherRegen (SR4T & DXP-1A5DSC) > (Sablon 2020 LAN) Innuos PhoenixNet > Muon Streaming System > Grimm Audio MU1 server > (Sablon AES) Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC > PS Audio M1200 monoblocks > Salk Sound Supercharged Songtowers

Link to comment
1 minute ago, AnotherSpin said:

You didn't

:D

Synergistic Research Powercell UEF SE > Sonore OpticalModule (LPS-1.2 & DXP-1A5DSC) > EtherRegen (SR4T & DXP-1A5DSC) > (Sablon 2020 LAN) Innuos PhoenixNet > Muon Streaming System > Grimm Audio MU1 server > (Sablon AES) Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC > PS Audio M1200 monoblocks > Salk Sound Supercharged Songtowers

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

How to put Grateful Dead into this scheme of things? As it is well know, they permitted to copy the sound from their shows from the soundboards in dedicated tapers zones and encouraged free distribution of the copies anywhere to anybody happy to listen.

 

This is an example of a copyright owner allowing others to freely distribute their copyrighted work.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BigAlMc said:

 

Nope, it's not. Friends listening to music on your CD in your house/car or your rip of that CD in your house/car is 100% ok. 

 

It only becomes dubious when you make or allow them to make a copy. 

Maybe what I meant didn't come across properly ... I agree with you ... but people were putting that suggestion forward as justification for copying!

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

How to put Grateful Dead into this scheme of things? As it is well know, they permitted to copy the sound from their shows from the soundboards in dedicated tapers zones and encouraged free distribution of the copies anywhere to anybody happy to listen.

It's there performance, they can put whatever conditions they like on it.

 

4 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

Or, Radiohead were selling their new album from a website for a price selected by a buyer, including 0.00 as well. What about copying of this?

You can't (legally).  Same with CDs given away for free with magazines / newspapers or mail in offers.

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think copyright law changes based on the amount paid for a copyrighted work. 

 

You are correct to presume that the copyright holder/owner still controls the rights to distribution.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions...

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, AnotherSpin said:

Or, Radiohead were selling their new album from a website for a price selected by a buyer, including 0.00 as well. What about copying of this?

There is still copyright attached, even if you did not pay for it. Also, just because you attached zero cost to your copy, does not mean that everyone does so. Remember that if they are hosting the distribution of the source material (of which they own the copyright), they will be collecting user data (usually email addresses, which are not zero value for marketing), of which you deprive them of when you distribute copies that you make.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions...

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Audio_ELF said:

It's there performance, they can put whatever conditions they like on it.

Yup, Grateful Dead hold the copyright in that case, and can decide on how it should and can be distributed.

 

27 minutes ago, Audio_ELF said:

You can't (legally).  Same with CDs given away for free with magazines / newspapers or mail in offers.

Correct! In the case of free CDs given away with magazines and newspapers, it is the magazine or newspapers that have already paid for the copyrighted copy that you then get for free. It does not mean that you are free to distribute it.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions...

Link to comment

There are several large "used CD/DVD" stores in my state.   They sell used CDs, DVDs, vinyl, games...etc.  I would be surprised if the artist or the  label receives any revenue from the sale of these items.

 

As for the record companies, when they give reparations to the families of all the old blues artists they ripped off over the last 105 years, then we can talk about who owns my CD collection.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment
1 minute ago, NOMBEDES said:

There are several large "used CD/DVD" stores in my state.   They sell used CDs, DVDs, vinyl, games...etc.  I would be surprised if the artist or the  label receives any revenue from the sale of these items.

 

As for the record companies, when they give reparations to the families of all the old blues artists they ripped off over the last 105 years, then we can talk about who owns my CD collection.

The companies who sell used CD's had to pay to get them.

 

Copied music deprives them of an opportunity to make a profit on the product they purchased.

 

Joel

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Grayson64 said:

On the keep side, I have spent several decades accumulating the collection. I am reluctant to let them go in case I might need them again.

 

On the get rid of side, for the vast majority of the collection, I seldom use the actual CD.  Just listen to the digital copy.  For all practical purposes, I live in a "playlist world" where I seldom listen to all the contents of a single CD. 

 

I see a lot of hate being displayed towards this question if not directly at you.  The most responsible action would be to palletize and shrink wrap them inside their jewel cases and put them into storage.  Alternately, nobody here would raise an eyebrow if you were contemplating getting rid of them all and replacing the stuff you listen to on your computer with a higher resolution format.  

 

You asked for thoughts and those are two I think worth considering.  

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, joelha said:

The companies who sell used CD's had to pay to get them.

 

Copied music deprives them of an opportunity to make a profit on the product they purchased.

 

Joel

 

Yes, the resellers are paying the general public who bring in old/used items.  As a side point, I am sure some of the CDs were copied before sale to the reseller.   I do not see how the artist gets anything out of this trade.  The artist only gets paid for the initial (new) sale.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment
1 minute ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

Yes, the resellers are paying the general public who bring in old/used items.  As a side point, I am sure some of the CDs were copied before sale to the reseller.   I do not see how the artist gets anything out of this trade.  The artist only gets paid for the initial (new) sale.

The point is the ethics involved in copying music.

 

Whether it's the artist, the used CD vendor or both, someone is likely to be treated unfairly.

 

Joel

Link to comment
1 minute ago, foodfiend said:

That is why I think the music labels are trying hard to reinvent the whole revenue model here. The old single copy of media does not really make sense in the digital age, where digital copies are easily made if there is no DRM present (and consumers all abhor DRM). The whole streaming model removes any ownership, and your ability to stream the music is tied to your account.

 

At least, in the case of the "used CD/DVD" stores, the previous owner of the CD/DVD theoretically has to get rid of any digital copies they have of the CD/DVD after selling to the store. That single licence to listen/watch then gets moved to another person. The problem is that there are people out there who buy a CD, rip it, and then sell it off (or worse, return it to the store for money back), and retain the digital copy.

 

Streaming circumvents the issue with illegal digital copies, since you no longer have a file to copy, and you officially no longer own the right for replay, except through an account.

 

@foodfriend.   Good post.  How much can the average middle income family afford for this brave new streaming world?

 

Cell phone = monthly charge

Internet = monthly charge

Hulu = monthly charge

Amazon Prime = monthly charge

NetFlix = monthly charge

Pandora = 

Tidal =

Whatever =

ya da ya da =

 

 

 

 

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, joelha said:

The point is the ethics involved in copying music.

 

Whether it's the artist, the used CD vendor or both, someone is likely to be treated unfairly.

 

Joel

 

I find the use of the word "ethics" in relation to the music business to be insanely funny.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

Streaming circumvents the issue with illegal digital copies, since you no longer have a file to copy, and you officially no longer own the right for replay, except through an account.

 

No, it doesn't. It just gets easier than ever to copy contents. Remember that access to content is not anymore an issue - people today just go to Youtube and download anything they want for free. Perhaps we're part of the 1% who don't because the quality is crap, but be assured that most people who don't have a Spotify etc. account do this. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

I do not see how the artist gets anything out of this trade.  The artist only gets paid for the initial (new) sale.

Not just the artist, but the music label, and hence the labels are trying to do something about it by changing the revenue model.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions...

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...