So how is a large retailer of used CDs, LPs and DVDs able to buy from me the originals I have purchased new and then stock them for direct resale to someone else? I don't see them contacting labels and artists to provide them royalties. In this way, many people are entertained by only one original purchase. This must be unethical, if not a violation of royalty rights. I have purchased a lot of used CDs and movies, too. Are these retailers paying into some large royalty pool that is paid out to artists or studios?
Redbook Keeps Surprising
I was a Best Buy to get a memory card reader for my computer. Looked at the CDs and saw a few in the bargain bin that I would like to have, only a few dollars. Came home, ripped them with DB power amp, picked the best cover art. Transferred to my Aurender through the NAS and played away. WOW, impressive sound and I really enjoyed them both. I like the High Res downloads and my SACD collection but am often really impressed by good Redbook CD. It really is the music that counts.
- ...
- 111 posts total
This clarifies the distinction between copyright and ownership of the material object in which it is embodied: "Copyright Law of the United States of Americaand Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Circular 92 § 202 . Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material objectOwnership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object." And the US Supreme Court's 2013 decision on "first sale doctrine": http://smallbiztrends.com/2013/03/resale-rights-you-bought-own.html Particularly: "Here in the States we have something called the “first sale doctrine.” It simply means that once a tangible copyrighted work (or something with copyright in it) is sold lawfully the first time, the original copyright owner no longer has rights over the physical item. After that, the buyer can do whatever he or she wants with it — sell it again, donate it, whatever. That’s why you can legally hold a yard sale or sell computers on eBay. The resale right applies only to the physical item sold, not copies." That protects the reseller of the original CD and subsequent resale of the material item through commerce. |
Thank you dgarretson, and exactly. As I have said repeatedly, one can dispose of the original recording however one sees fit. One mustn't, however, retain, or worse sell or give away, *copies* of copyrighted recordings. Retailers, or libraries, or others selling "preowned" CDs operate under the assumption that copyright restrictions on copying have been observed. The reality, of course, may be less than perfectly compliant, but that doesn't mean that one shouldn't try. And certainly one shouldn't congratulate one's self for shorting the composer/performer/musician/et al. BTW, if anyone is interested in how to effectively and cost-efficiently shelve 1000's of Redbook or otherwise CDs, I have some good suggestions (I think...) based on my own experience. |
lp2cd, "One mustn’t...retain...*copies* of copyrighted recordings." That is precisely where we differ. I see nothing in the law that restricts retaining a fair-use copy for personal use and then disposing of or reselling the original material object. The copyrighted interest in the original material object legally ceases at initial purchase. Fair use allows for a copy or copies for personal use. Subsequent resale of the material object does not retroactively cancel what was formally protected as fair use. However, the sale of the fair use copy or copies of that copy is illegal. What "one mustn’t do" may be a moral decision, but is not in law as far as I can see. Even in a moral sense, I can’t see how it hurts the artist. In college campus parlance, it is at most a "micro-injury." The real damage is done through file sharing and resale of copies, whether in a commercial interest or not. And this is why the RIAA focuses its discussion on duplicates and not on originals. I do agree that you raised an interesting discussion. |
I wish the record labels worried as much about sharing the profits with the artists (and for dead artists, their estates & families) FAIRLY themselves and in proportion to the artists’ actual contributions versus the record label’s, to the same extent as we are worrying about what are essentially and primarily the record label’s and retailers profit-making rights on this thread. Bear in mind, I am not intending to start a flame war..... *****I just wonder if anyone has stopped to think whether or not some dead (or still living) jazz artist/group and their families are seeing extensive and meaningful multiples of real royalty percentages proportional to the talent required to make the music as label after label comes out with the latest LP pressings in various weights and packaging, various CD, XRCD, SACD, DVD-A, BluRay DVD, etc...and so on and so forth. For example, I have multiple different releases of Miles Davis, Freddie Hubbard and other dead jazz artists in various formats and releases. I have paid new for every one of them from 1st-run retailers/labels so I’ve done my part and ’obeyed the law’. *****Do Miles’ or Freddie’s families (or foundations) really see the amount of money they should based upon Miles’ and Freddie’s actual creation of the music from the record label and retailer or is the bulk of the money from the ’latest and greatest pressing or remaster’ really nothing more but a great annuity business and profit opportunity for those record labels and retailers time and time again based upon a one-time licensing of the ’use of the master tape’????? Don’t get me wrong,..I’m grateful for every ’better’ edition of albums I love, hitting the streets and if I buy them, my shelves. I’m grateful for the continuous innovation and improvement however, I see this "mill mentality" where everybody and their mother is putting out copies of ’the great albums’ at no small price (that only seem to be going up...); I’d be willing to better that Miles’ and Freddie’s families (and everyone alive or dead like them) only see a pittance by comparison to what they, the reasons the music exists in the first place, deserve. If we want to worry about something meaningful, let’s worry about that first, and less about what is really record company/retailer profit opportunity protection veiled by some legal issue. More calmly,...if I buy an CD, LP, SACD, Movies on DVD or BluRay, etc.. pay full price and thus abide by the law, play it, enjoy it, and decide to make a copy of it to retain (on hard-drive, etc.. which I very rarely if ever do in the first place) then sell it or give it away, what’s truly wrong with that? |
- 111 posts total