What to do with 1,200 CDs I don't need

Prpixel: Quite a group of friends there ;^)

Herman:

For me the simple test is what would you consider fair if you were on the other side of the fence? I find it hard to believe you could support your position if you made your living from your music.

The truth is I know several people who make (or try to make) their primary living from music, receive checks from BMI/ASCAP, and do exactly the kinds of things most people do when it comes to copying and circulating copyrighted recorded music on a limited basis (I don't know, however, what their file-sharing stances or habits are). And as I've said repeatedly, I don't think this question represents a zero-sum game, or that practices like this might not help, rather than harm, artists in the big picture. But I agree with your decision to keep your disks. (As for the sonic aspect, the only hard-disk-based device that's been hooked-up to my system, an Alesis MasterLink recorder/burner, does not sound quite as good feeding my DAC from its hard-drive as the same material sounds played from the CD via my Theta transport. And all CD-R's burned on several devices and brands of blanks have never sounded as good as the originals.)

Yes, it's getting harder and harder to find "audiophile" and tech savy friends.

BTW - the guy who thought that hard drives are like records is a custom installer of audio/video. Scary, isn't it?

Edesilva, very nice analysis. I fully recognize that this issue is not fully legally decided and I would imagine that future court cases will only partly clarify the morass.

The RIAA is not a consumer advocate group. They would love to have CDs granted the protections that computer software makers are currently provided. I believe I am in a majority position in arguing that new legislation would have to be enacted to bring them there. Such new legislation would be an erosion of privileges currently enjoyed by consumers.

"The RIAA is not a consumer advocate group."

Amen to that. Frankly, kind of makes me queasy to even state their arguments, even if I do so with attribution. Just read another thread where they are suing a family for illegally downloading material, and the family doesn't even have a computer. The fact that the family just moved into the house in question doesn't seem to enter into the RIAA's analysis.

I'm a huge advocate of extensive fair use rights and think DRM is anti-consumer. Don't even get me started on video technology... Here I'll put in a plug for EFF--the Electronic Frontier Foundation--at http://www.eff.org.

Highway 61, you wore me out yesterday with your dust storm of what-if scenarios but I will try one more time to convince you that buying a CD, making and retaining a copy for your personal use, and then selling the original is illegal. Forget about whether or not you lose it or how many people are in your family.

My whole position depends entirely on the fact that it is illegal to sell copies. If you feel that it is legal to buy and sell copies then don't bother to read any further.

Scenario 1: You buy a new CD for $15, make a copy to keep for your use, and sell the original to your friend for $10.

Scenario 2: Your friend buys a new CD for $15, sells you a copy to use for $5, and he keeps the original. This is clearly illegal if you agree that selling copies is illegal.

The end result is exactly the same. In both cases your friend has the original and is out $10 while you have a copy and are out $5. How can one be legal and the other not if the end result is exactly the same?

It doesn't matter if you murder your wife or you pay somebody to murder your wife, if you get caught you are going to fry.