Getting rid of CD's?

[foodfiend]

15 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

@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 =

 

 

 

 

This reminds me very much of "hire purchase" where people are fooled into committing by the low upfront cost, but end up paying much more in the long run. Take the streaming music or video examples. What happens when you terminate your contract/account? You effectively are left with nothing but a faint memory...

[foodfiend]

16 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

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

While many in the music business are not with the strongest of ethics, they are entitled to make money however is legal. For as long as there is a willing seller and willing buyer, there will be trade.

 

However, I do believe that the business model for the music industry is well and truly broken... It resembles a VC/PE model in terms of financing!

[foodfiend]

12 minutes ago, unbalanced output said:

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. 

Well, it is a matter of time before the likes of YouTube and streaming services will include DRM of sorts. YouTube is already clamping down on content creators, but they should really look at making it more difficult to download and playback the streamed content.

[Paul R]

14 hours ago, esldude said:

How about this, I know someone who had this happen by the way.

 

You have digital copies of your CDs, and someone breaks in and steals the physical CDs.  Do the rights go with the physical carbonate disc even though stolen from you or do you retain rightful right of use even though you don't have the physical disc?  Is it dependent upon you showing in some way there was a theft of your discs?

 

Ethically I don't even see a question you should continue using your digital copies of discs physically stolen from you.

 

Absolutely, which is what the right to make an archival or backup copy is all about.

 

But the person has a pretty good reason to not have the CDs in their possession if they were destroyed in a fire. If nothing catastrophic has happened, then, not so much perhaps. 

 

-Paul 

[Grayson64]

Well, when I started this thread, it was not meant to generate such a

lengthy discussion on copyright law and ethical handling of music content. It was really about the concept of collecting and letting go.  But since it has gone that direction, might as well put in my two cents.

 

My view is very simple. I paid for the CD's; every one of them. The artist has been paid.  What I do with them after that is up to me.  Nothing ethical about that. If I was intentionally buying, then returning immediately after recording it for my collection, maybe I would have some ethical problem.  But that is not the case here. I paid, made a copy for my JRiver installation and then put the CD on a shelf for the next multiple number of years. Now it is a matter of how large a physical collection I want and/or need.

 

I suppose Sony can come after me if they are so inclined.  I care little about them.  As to the artist, I will sleep like a babe in the proverbial woods.  They got their fair share out of me.

 

In any case, I have decided to keep most of the CD's, but get rid of the ones I don't like as much.  The digital copies will stay in my library, but the discs are headed to the local public library so anyone else can listen if they like.

[NOMBEDES]

13 minutes ago, Grayson64 said:

Well, when I started this thread, it was not meant to generate such a

lengthy discussion on copyright law and ethical handling of music content. It was really about the concept of collecting and letting go.  But since it has gone that direction, might as well put in my two cents.

 

My view is very simple. I paid for the CD's; every one of them. The artist has been paid.  What I do with them after that is up to me.  Nothing ethical about that. If I was intentionally buying, then returning immediately after recording it for my collection, maybe I would have some ethical problem.  But that is not the case here. I paid, made a copy for my JRiver installation and then put the CD on a shelf for the next multiple number of years. Now it is a matter of how large a physical collection I want and/or need.

 

I suppose Sony can come after me if they are so inclined.  I care little about them.  As to the artist, I will sleep like a babe in the proverbial woods.  They got their fair share out of me.

 

In any case, I have decided to keep most of the CD's, but get rid of the ones I don't like as much.  The digital copies will stay in my library, but the discs are headed to the local public library so anyone else can listen if they like.

 

In my case, the artist was paid more than once for the same music:  (only one example)

Exile on Main Street:

Vinyl, CD, SACD, imported Japanese flat transfer........   Mr. Jagger can thank me later.

 

 

[monteverdi]

I mostly listen to these shinny discs as I hate the process of ripping. I have some CDs which will not play on my CD transport but the rips play fine. I still keep these useless pieces of polycarbonate. But I am thinking to build a smaller home and not needing these shelves would be great.

How one can be forced to verify the possession of a CD (physical copy)? It would be close to impossible for any copyrights holder to prove that one does not own a physical copy (search warrant to find nothing)? Laws which are unenforceable are not very useful. Distributing digital copies is obviously a very different mater.

As streaming will be soon the main distribution mode the possession of physical discs or digital files stored on some HDD etc. will become pretty irrelevant for the majority of music consumers.

[foodfiend]

21 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

How one can be forced to verify the possession of a CD (physical copy)? It would be close to impossible for any copyrights holder to prove that one does not own a physical copy (search warrant to find nothing)? Laws which are unenforceable are not very useful.

Totally agree that it is not really enforceable. In fact, I doubt that any music label would bother with an individual and whether he/she owns a physical copy of a CD, when using a digital one (if the digital one wasn't bought online).

 

24 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

Distributing digital copies is obviously a very different mater.

As streaming will be soon the main distribution mode the possession of physical discs or digital files stored on some HDD etc. will become pretty irrelevant for the majority of music consumers.

Yes, and I think this is the music industry trying to change the consumer's concept of consumption of music to the "pay-for-use" model. Compared with the current "copy-ownership" model, each has its advantages and disadvantages. Call me traditional, but I don't like the new subscription-type model, since it is like a rent - you don't have any rights after your subscription ends.

 

It is also their way to rid themselves of the problem of piracy, with the consumer no longer fixated on having copies of the music. Although it is still early days to see if significant numbers will then hack streaming services to gain free access - another form of piracy.

[Ralf11]

https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

[AnotherSpin]

6 hours ago, foodfiend said:

Call me traditional, but I don't like the new subscription-type model, since it is like a rent - you don't have any rights after your subscription ends.

 

This is exactly what I like. One should be able to stay away or to get rid of material remnants of whatever he or she doesn't use or need anymore. To have or to be? Classic dichotomy which was summarized for modern reader in a great book by Erich Fromm. Subscription is much better than ownership, imho. Though not ideal, because of still certain commitment inferred.

[Teresa]

17 hours ago, unbalanced output said:

Is there any good alternative for archiving that doesn't involve keeping the plastic CD cases? They look horrible after a few years anyways.

 

CD cases (plastic or cardboard) don't have to look horrible, you can purchase plastic outer sleeves that keep them looking new, at 18 cents per disc. Japanese CD Top Sealing Resealable Outer Sleeves (100 Pack)

 

You might want to check them out before ditching the CD cases. Hope this helps.

[Teresa]

16 hours ago, ted_b said:

...We all have them ripped (at least once)...

 

Ted, I tried ripping a few CDs to the uncompressed .wav and .aiff formats and I find I like the sound of my physical discs on my Yamaha Blu-ray / SACD player better than through my Teac USB DSD DAC. So I must be a rare exception to your rule.

 

15 hours ago, rando said:

Show of hands, how many of you erase every single trace of every single copy of a track that became unplayable on the original source CD? 

 

I thought that was one of the reasons to make a digital copy in case the original becomes unplayable. I am adventuresome as I don't have my physical discs backed up to digital files. I do have my 24 bit PCM and DSD downloads backed up though.

 

13 hours 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...

 

That is the reason that one is supposed to erase all copies of a physical product when they sell or trade in a physical disc, the right to it travels with the disc. The royalties were paid once when the disc was new, the seller gives up all rights to listen to the music as that right passes to the new owner who purchased the used disc.

 

13 hours ago, foodfiend said:

...(and consumers all abhor DRM)...

 

I'm an exception to your observation as my favorite format is SACD and it is copy protected. Of course SACD has been hacked, but I've been a fan since 2000 so the presence of DRM doesn't bother me. I use the built-in DAC in my Yamaha / Blu-ray player, I love its sound quality.

 

13 hours 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.

 

Yes the artists only get paid for the new sale and that is why one is supposed to delete all copies of any disc they sell or give away, as the rights to listen to the music pass to the new owner.

 

13 hours ago, foodfiend said:

Well, it is a matter of time before the likes of YouTube and streaming services will include DRM of sorts. YouTube is already clamping down on content creators, but they should really look at making it more difficult to download and playback the streamed content.

 

Good idea. Right now there are people posting complete albums on YouTube with just a picture of the album cover. The artist didn't give them permission to do so. Music videos from record companies who have accounts with YouTube are legit though.

[foodfiend]

12 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Good idea. Right now there are people posting complete albums on YouTube with just a picture of the album cover. The artist didn't give them permission to do so. Music videos from record companies who have accounts with YouTube are legit though.

I do think that YouTube is trying to clean things up, but I do worry when I see complete albums being posted on YouTube.

 

On the topic of buying physical copies, what about Out-of-Print albums? It does get frustrating that you can no longer get a new copy. And it may even be impossible to get a copy on the second-hand market if it was a small production run by an emerging/underground band.

[Teresa]

14 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

....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 =

 

There are alternatives, just saying. The only monthly charge I pay is my apartment rent and my landline telephone bill. 

 

I have no cell phone and I don't want one, ever! I have a corded landline phone that I paid $6 for brand new. My last corded phone cost $10 and lasted over 20 years.

 

Free wi-fi internet is included with my rent, more and more apartment complexes are including internet service.

 

I have an HDTV with a cheap $15 antenna and I get perfect reception of the 24 free over-the-air television stations, the major networks are 1080p, many of the independents are 720i, however some are only 480p, all have excellent sound quality, So I see no reason to pay for Hulu, Amazon Prime or NetFlix. I buy used DVDs for $1 to $2 each and Blu-rays for $3 to $5 at local pawn shops and thrift stores. So I see no advantage to pay a monthly fee for TV.

 

I never have had a music streaming service but from what I have seen they wouldn't be of benefit to me as I prefer audiophile recordings. I might consider one if it was lossless, had the complete catalogs of Telarc, Reference Recordings and other audiophile labels, as well as needle drops of all direct-to-disc LPs ever issued. I'm not holding my breath. 

[foodfiend]

2 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

This is exactly what I like. One should be able to stay away or to get rid of material remnants of whatever he or she doesn't use or need anymore. To have or to be? Classic dichotomy which was summarized for modern reader in a great book by Erich Fromm. Subscription is much better than ownership, imho. Though not ideal, because of still certain commitment inferred.

While I do like being able to rid myself of the "material remnants" of something I no longer need, I really do not like the "commitment inferred" by subscription.

 

I like the freedom with the acquisition model, since I can stop buying music if I am running low on money, and stick to listening to the music I already own. Can't do that for a subscription, which is all-or-nothing.

[Teresa]

25 minutes ago, foodfiend said:

I do think that YouTube is trying to clean things up, but I do worry when I see complete albums being posted on YouTube.

 

On the topic of buying physical copies, what about Out-of-Print albums? It does get frustrating that you can no longer get a new copy. And it may even be impossible to get a copy on the second-hand market if it was a small production run by an emerging/underground band.

 

I have seen out-of-print SACDs show up as high resolution downloads. For underground bands perhaps a google search will turn up a download. Also check used record stores as all kinds CDs ends up there.

[foodfiend]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

I have seen out-of-print SACDs show up as high resolution downloads. For underground bands perhaps a google search will turn up a download. Also check used record stores as all kinds CDs ends up there.

Trust me, I do. There aren't many "used record" stores in my country, but I almost always visit them when I am overseas.

[Kal Rubinson]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

I buy used DVDs for $1 to $2 each and Blu-rays for $3 to $5 at local pawn shops and thrift stores. 

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

Yes the artists only get paid for the new sale and that is why one is supposed to delete all copies of any disc they sell or give away, as the rights to listen to the music pass to the new owner.

 

So, you are OK with this?

[Jeremy Anderson]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

I never have had a music streaming service but from what I have seen they wouldn't be of benefit to me as I prefer audiophile recordings. I might consider one if it was lossless, had the complete catalogs of Telarc, Reference Recordings and other audiophile labels, as well as needle drops of all direct-to-disc LPs ever issued. I'm not holding my breath. 

 

Time to take another look at TIDAL then... quite a few Telarc and RR recordings up there (losslessly), with more being added all the time.

 

(D2D is an entirely different story. There are a few, but then someone would have to actually make the needle drops (in an official capacity) for others to appear...)

[joelha]

2 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

So, you are OK with this?

 

Kal,

 

You're asking whether Theresa would be o.k. with deleting copies of discs before selling those discs?

 

If that's your question, why wouldn't she be o.k. with this? It seems like the right thing to do.

 

Joel

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I have seen out-of-print SACDs show up as high resolution downloads. For underground bands perhaps a google search will turn up a download. Also check used record stores as all kinds CDs ends up there.

 

Yes. I've downloaded a few SACD images for the SACD's I had already purchased.  I wouldn't think of selling the SACD's while retaining the images.  Nonetheless, I'm not going to pay again to acquire images for SACDs I already purchased.

[lucretius]

23 hours ago, Grayson64 said:

In any case, I have decided to keep most of the CD's, but get rid of the ones I don't like as much.  The digital copies will stay in my library, but the discs are headed to the local public library so anyone else can listen if they like.

 

Ahh .. the local public library.  How many people are ripping copies from these disks? 

[lucretius]

23 hours ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

In my case, the artist was paid more than once for the same music:  (only one example)

Exile on Main Street:

Vinyl, CD, SACD, imported Japanese flat transfer........   Mr. Jagger can thank me later.

 

 

 

Perhaps someone should launch a class action suit against the record companies?

[Ralf11]

11 hours ago, foodfiend said:

 

On the topic of buying physical copies, what about Out-of-Print albums? It does get frustrating that you can no longer get a new copy. And it may even be impossible to get a copy on the second-hand market if it was a small production run by an emerging/underground band.

 

we need a law about "abandonment of copyright"

[unbalanced output]

On 30/07/2017 at 8:28 PM, foodfiend said:

Well, it is a matter of time before the likes of YouTube and streaming services will include DRM of sorts. YouTube is already clamping down on content creators, but they should really look at making it more difficult to download and playback the streamed content.

 

YouTube is a very interesting platform. It is true that there are copyright infringements in videos bla bla black but thats not important really. YouTube is the modern version of the TV in a sense. You can watch whatever you please, all for free. Artists publish their stuff and get paid for the views and at the same time they get direct publicity. There is no need to middlemen (other than Google) to get something published, but at the same time labels have their own channels. I find more music through YouTube nowadays rather than anywhere else, also all sorts of rarities can be found there - of course, quality is not great. 

 

Already years ago Monty Python published all their old sketches because they were fed up with sketchy (sic) versions of their videos! Such visionaries! Postmodern Jukebox was also propelled through YouTube, which in turn brought several talented artists to the spotlight. And so on.

 

Looking at all that's happening in the world of music, it somehow makes me sad to see this obscure side of music where people have to keep their CDs in a safe fearing the copyright police. 

 

Ps. Nothing directed to you or anyone else, just some Monday night ranting