A hypothetical moral question about buying used CDs... - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by baka1969 

I think this is an interesting concept. BobSaysHi even mentions something similar exists. What if along with having to contribute the service is a paid service? You have to contribute a certain amount to take a certain amount. The question would be about redundancy. If I wanted to add, say, the 30th anniversary DSotM but it's already in the catalog, that wouldn't really be a contribution. It would be difficult for every member to bestow something unique to the group. This all does move into the realm of downloads though. Which sort of departs from my initial query. The trading of used CDs. Uncle Erik mentions that having a ripped copy on a storage drive is where the problem lies. The thing is that ripping a CD is a common practice. Selling used CDs is an accepted tradition. File sharing, even in the above examples, has proven to be a no-no. The only clear answer is to delete your ripped files when you sell the CD. Is that something that's even reasonable to expect?

this is exactly the reason why I'm not a member of said website anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobSaysHi 

I suspect my post will get deleted, but I figure I'll just post anyway and hope for the best.

 

There are places (on the Internet) that support such practices. Getting in requires a great deal of knowledge on how CDs are ripped and whatnot. The community spirit is to contribute to the pile of CD's (really cd rips, but whatever) and they operate in such a way that it is very, very difficult to remain a part of the group without contributing your own collection. So there is a HUGE library available, and a user can pick and choose which albums to pick out, but you have to contribute your own stuff in return.

 

I doubt it's legality, or whether or not it's ethical, but those places do exist. It's almost eerie the way you described it too, because that's exactly the way this site I won't mention is operated.

Well, the difference between this and what UE suggested is that in your example there is no real way to account for and verify ownership of the actual discs.  There is nothing stopping someone from uploading a CD to the database or whatever and then selling the hard copy of the disc, which puts you in the same grey area that op and others are referring to.  In Erik's little co-op, each member can be assured that they "own" the disc in question.    

All of this makes me wonder about amazon and itunes downloads though.  Is there something embedded in those files that says John Smith purchased this song/album at x day at y time?   

Anyways, I'm not too worried about it mostly cause I've bought a lot of used cd's and either 1) they suck or 2) they are good and I buy more music, merch, etc from that band.  There have been plenty of times where I've purchased a cd just cause the cover looked cool and it was $5.  If I had to pay $16.99 for that same disc I would never take that risk.  I think that's part of the problem.  I mean, to me The Beatles-Revolver might have an actual subjective value of $50 or more whereas Ke$ha's latest album has a negative value (you'd have to pay me to take it).   These subjective values aren't(/can't really be) reflected in the price of the cd, though, so if you want to expand your musical horizons you either have to drop a lot of cash or find a way to research.  I mean, I don't mind spending money on music, but I don't want to spend money on garbage music.  My feeling is that if I derive some enjoyment from listening to a particular artist, that artist deserves some compensation.  

Browsing the used section of a local music store can be a great way to cheaply research new music at a lower financial risk should you accidentally buy some trash album.  I really don't think the proceeds from selling used cd's goes to the record company/artist anyhow so the person paid full price for a cd, ripped it, and then sold it back really shouldn't feel bad about that.  They made their $16.99 and just because it's now available for less doesn't mean it would currently be purchased at full price by someone else.  Not to mention that whomever re-sold the album probably only got a few bucks in return.  If I pay $16.99 and then re-sell that disc for $7 to a store, I still have $10 equity in that purchase so there's my digital copy right there.  (morally/ethically speaking)

That being said, If I like an album I will keep a copy of the cd, not for legal purposes, but just because I don't trust hard drives and I want a physical hard copy of the album.  If not I sell it.  I have no problem with keeping a copy of an album, though, even if I don't have the disc anymore.   I don't think I should be punished or feel bad for keeping something around that I paid for, don't currently have a use for or enjoy, but might one day in the future. Who knows, maybe one day my future grandkids might hear something they like that grandpa thought was just meh.  

nowadays most people who buy physical CD's do it to have the physical copy of it. otherwise, (like I do) digital copies are faster to get and easier, and most times cheaper.

I wouldnt have a problem selling used CDs, knowing that in the day i did enjoy the booklet or bought them not only to rip and sell. but anyway, as a buyer, if the disc is in good condition and cheater than new, i wouldnt hesitate in buying it, not even thinking about what did the previous owner did with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadhead12 

 

 

Well, the difference between this and what UE suggested is that in your example there is no real way to account for and verify ownership of the actual discs.  There is nothing stopping someone from uploading a CD to the database or whatever and then selling the hard copy of the disc, which puts you in the same grey area that op and others are referring to.  In Erik's little co-op, each member can be assured that they "own" the disc in question.    

 

All of this makes me wonder about amazon and itunes downloads though.  Is there something embedded in those files that says John Smith purchased this song/album at x day at y time?   

 

Anyways, I'm not too worried about it mostly cause I've bought a lot of used cd's and either 1) they suck or 2) they are good and I buy more music, merch, etc from that band.  There have been plenty of times where I've purchased a cd just cause the cover looked cool and it was $5.  If I had to pay $16.99 for that same disc I would never take that risk.  I think that's part of the problem.  I mean, to me The Beatles-Revolver might have an actual subjective value of $50 or more whereas Ke$ha's latest album has a negative value (you'd have to pay me to take it).   These subjective values aren't(/can't really be) reflected in the price of the cd, though, so if you want to expand your musical horizons you either have to drop a lot of cash or find a way to research.  I mean, I don't mind spending money on music, but I don't want to spend money on garbage music.  My feeling is that if I derive some enjoyment from listening to a particular artist, that artist deserves some compensation.  

 

Browsing the used section of a local music store can be a great way to cheaply research new music at a lower financial risk should you accidentally buy some trash album.  I really don't think the proceeds from selling used cd's goes to the record company/artist anyhow so the person paid full price for a cd, ripped it, and then sold it back really shouldn't feel bad about that.  They made their $16.99 and just because it's now available for less doesn't mean it would currently be purchased at full price by someone else.  Not to mention that whomever re-sold the album probably only got a few bucks in return.  If I pay $16.99 and then re-sell that disc for $7 to a store, I still have $10 equity in that purchase so there's my digital copy right there.  (morally/ethically speaking)

 

That being said, If I like an album I will keep a copy of the cd, not for legal purposes, but just because I don't trust hard drives and I want a physical hard copy of the album.  If not I sell it.  I have no problem with keeping a copy of an album, though, even if I don't have the disc anymore.   I don't think I should be punished or feel bad for keeping something around that I paid for, don't currently have a use for or enjoy, but might one day in the future. Who knows, maybe one day my future grandkids might hear something they like that grandpa thought was just meh.  

 

yes, iTunes songs tag user's info into the song itself.

I don't feel like I'm the best at expressing my opinion, especially in text form, but I'll try nontheless.

I'm not going to question whether or not torrents are ethical, but I'd rather like to point out that I NEVER would've liked the bands I do now without file sharing networks. Imagine you're 14, and the three bands you like were all on the top 40 at one point in time. So you want to branch out musically, yet you don't have money to maybe like a band if you buy a CD. You do a little research and track down something interesting. You listen to it, and it's godawful. You move on. You strike gold, and find something new and unique. 

Anyway, all of this experimenting has lead me to like subgenres of subgenres that...

1. Wouldn't have existed without the internet spreading the word 

2. I wouldn't have liked in the first place without looking around

Lets take a band, lets say, for example, Cynic. Cynic released one hell of a good album in the 90's. It mixed Death Metal with just about every genre known to man, and it did it wonderfully. However, it was a relatively unknown release during it's time. Several years later, the internet boomed, and filesharing spread their album around and it gained in popularity. Now, Cynic has released another album, and is critically acclaimed.

Now, you might say that you managed to find bands you liked by paying for CDs, and I probably would have too, but it wouldn't have happened nearly as quickly as it would've without the internet. Hell, I'm 17 and I own 70 CDs, all of which I've pirated before I've purchased. 

Now, I don't think piracy is the answer, but neither is the current way of doing business.