Thinking about selling my CD collection = MP3

Tvad, the "copyright police" aren't going to believe anything you say, if past precedents hold true. They simply sue you based on some evidence of some kind, and then you are locked in litigation. The judge, theoretically, will weigh the facts and give you a fair hearing, but the RIAA won't. They will subpoena your hard drive and try to show that you have stuff that is pirated. You may be able to defend yourself on the basis of showing that you ripped stuff to your hard drive that matches your collection of CDs, that the creation date on your files matches your patterns of having ripped batches of your stuff. You may also be able to show that things are legal downloads by reference to your activity on, say, the iTunes Music Store. By then, however, you will have had to have hired a lawyer and probably burned tens of thousands in legal fees. And the judge may be a technical ninny with no understanding of your defense. This is why so many settle out of court with the RIAA, even if they didn't do anything wrong. This is also why the RIAA sucks.

I see a lot of statements here regarding what is legal and what is not. A lot of what has been categorically stated as legal or illegal is flatly wrong and based on GCEs. If you are interested in this as a matter of law, check this thread. It is exactly on point and it is the copyright blog of a lawyer who is formerly copyright counsel to the House of Representatives.

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/10/first-sale-hard-copies-and-digital.html

Ed, very interesting blog. Seems that for now, the vote is still out.

The RIAA says you can't sell your CD if you retain your copy, but,

Thay have no legal backing for making that statement, and,

So far, there has been no test case on the matter.
.

Yes, interesting, but it is almost a year old and just that; a blog. Who knows if this person, whoever they may be since there is no way to authenticate who it is, has any better handle on this than anyone else.

Fair enough, we can differ on whether the RIAA is on a general hunt to track down and sue consumers; if you do some research, I think the facts there *are* objectively pretty dismal.

Dismissing Patry's blog as "just another blog" or saying you don't lend any credence to it because its on the internet does not do you credit, however. Patry isn't just some dude with wordpress. His resume is on the website and easily authenticated. FBOW, he is a leading policy scholar in the copyright field--"Senior Copyright Counsel, Google Inc. Former copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary; Policy Planning Advisor to the Register of Copyrights; Law Professor Georgetown Law Center (adjunct), Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (full-time faculty member, founding director L.L.M in Intellectual Property program), author of numerous treatises and articles (including one on fair use with Judge Richard Posner), including a forthcoming multi-volume treatise on copyright." It's not exactly a punter's resume, even though Posner isn't my favorite academic.

Besides, I think we may be in violent agreement, except for our respective views on the RIAA. I was just trying to answer your question on the "proof" issue by noting that, as a practical matter, the legal process is a very expensive way to discern truth. So expensive, in fact, that the actual truth of the matter may be irrelevant when matching an experienced and well funded litigant against a consumer who is a neophyte to the court system.