CDs

[danaeris]

Once you've ripped a cd you own to mp3, anyone have any good, compelling reasons to keep the physical CD?

I'm trying to decide if I should ship the CDs I own, or ditch them. I'm certainly leaning towards ditching the CD cases in favor of a "book," at least.





...

Packing proceeds. Don't know what else to say... Hard to believe that it is only a little over a week before I'll be leaving the country, and moving back... home.

Comments

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

I did a lot of this. Possible reasons:

1. Portability. There are more CD players than MP3 players around, and if you want to listen to a song in the car, or at work, or in a strange place, you'll want to have it.

2. Backup, same as any other piece of software. Hard drives fail, systems die, and you might want to have the "original" available.

3. Aesthetics, but not many compact disc manufacturers took great advantage of that, anyway.

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

4. Ethics/Legality. As long as I own the CD, I'm pretty certain I can safely argue 'Fair Use' and win. If I rip the CD and then discard it, it's going to be harder to prove. If I rip the CD and then sell it, well, by my personal definition, that would be stealing.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

If I rip the CD and then sell it, well, by my personal definition, that would be stealing.

Really? Can you say more on this? I've bought CDs, ripped them, and then sold them back to the local used-music store because I felt it was more moral, not less.

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

I don't know where that stands legally... hence the disclaimer of it being by my personal definition. I figure as long as I own the CD, I am entitled to listen to it whatever form I choose (MP3, tapes, etc.). If I then sell the CD, I figure I am no longer entitled to that. To keep the copies would be the same as buying a album, taking it home to copy and then returning it to the store to get my money back. Again... only my opinion, and I only enforce it on myself.

As far as the arguing fair use... it's a lot easier to prove you're entitled to those backup copies if you can show the original CD. Otherwise they could argue that you just downloaded the copy from somewhere.

If space were a concern, what I would do is buy a CD binder for the discs and liner notes and the recycle the jewel cases.

[auros]

As far as the arguing fair use... it's a lot easier to prove you're entitled to those backup copies if you can show the original CD. Otherwise they could argue that you just downloaded the copy from somewhere.

If you can't show them the original, then you're not entitled to a convenience copy. You are, in theory, entitled to a backup, but that's easier to argue with a physical object like a tape than with an easily-duplicable medium like MP3s. You'd need something like the broken fragments of the original, to show that you had the original, and now you only have the backup.

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering how that will start to hash out now, what with being able to buy digital downloads. Some of them are easy... iTMS and Napster both use DRM, so it would be easy to prove you "own" them. However, there are companies like eMusic (which I recommend, assuming they have stuff you like) which sell DRM free MP3 files.

[auros]

Having taken a class on IP law -- us23 is correct. You can legally make a second copy for convenience and/or backup (as when people started taping their LPs, for use in the car). You can't keep the second copy if you sell the original. This was hashed out in the courts in the '80s.

I also agree with him on moral grounds. If you put that original back into circulation, it displaces a sale of a new original, which puts money on the bottom line of the owner of the content. Most of which, granted, will go to a large corporation rather than to the artist. But the solution to this is to patronize artists who pursue alternative publishing schemes, not to violate the agreement under which you bought your current stash of music.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

No matter how I contort my mind, I can't see how it would be particularly moral to resell CDs you've already ripped. More moral than what? Sure, its more moral than returning the CD, which is just reprehensible. Is that what you meant? Because selling it while keeping the copies you ripped is still at least a little sketchy, even if most people would do it without qualms. How do you figure it as something to uphold as a moral act?

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

Well, here's my train of thought:

I buy a CD at full price. I take that CD home and transfer the music to my computer. Now I have both the music, and the CD from whence it came. That CD now has less value to me than it originally did. I take the CD to CD Spins, or some other CD reseller, who gives me a small credit (perhaps $2 or $3), which I can apply to other purchases. Another consumer can now buy that CD at a smaller sum than I paid, which helps both the independent reseller and someone who makes less money than I do.

I think this is better than keeping the CD in my closet to gather dust. It may not be as good as passing the CD along for free might be, but the act of doing so creates business for another store, and I can feel good about that in the process. Where do you see the sketch?

(And, along those lines, the store where I work sells used books, too. We don't ask what people have done with the books before we buy them -- perhaps every single page has been scanned and kept as a reference.)

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

Another consumer can now buy that CD at a smaller sum than I paid, which helps both the independent reseller and someone who makes less money than I do. ... Where do you see the sketch?

because it doesn't at all help the artist, who is the one who actually created the music in the first place. in fact it directly hurts him since someone who might well have been able to afford a new copy could buy a used copy instead. Sure, someone who couldn't afford a new one MIGHT buy a used one... but there are plenty of people who can afford it but just prefer to save a few bucks.

Which isn't to say I never buy used music... but I generally do it either with things that are old enough that I have a hard time finding them new, or music I am experimenting with that I don't know if I will like it that I wouldn't bother with at all if I had to pay new-music prices for it. And if I happen to like the artist I often WILL then go buy new stuff by them later now that I know it is worth it to me.

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

because it doesn't at all help the artist, who is the one who actually created the music in the first place. in fact it directly hurts him since someone who might well have been able to afford a new copy could buy a used copy instead.

A valid point, but I might argue against "directly" -- as I understand it, most artists never see a dime in royalties because of the way that recording contracts are structured, so the difference between one or two copies sold never hits them.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

point. but, as auros said elsewhere in the thread... the fact that big recording companies suck also an issue, but one that needs to be fought in different ways. in that vein, I figure when I am buying ceedees directly from small-venue concerts I go to I am doing the most to benefit the artist of any way I might buy the ceedee.

[cos]

Also sound quality, if you care about that, and ever intend to listen to it on a really good sound system. mp3's aren't perfect (though they can come close if you use a very high sampling rate). Then again, neither are CDs - if it weren't for the noise/hiss, analog is actually better for many things - but the mp3's are imperfect renditions of the CDs for which these recordings were mastered.