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

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. For those of you who sent emails I was serious that this is not an ad to sell or give them away. That is why you were ignored.

I admit the bottom line is money. If the $2 to $5 estimate is valid that would be almost $4,000 at the low end of around $3 each. I’m not starving here but that is a good chunk of change.

The issue is not space. As you can see from my system pictures I have shelves to hold them and I was wondering what to put there if the CDs are gone.

I am not concerned about theft or lightning, the archive hard drives will be sitting on a shelf and they could steal the CDs too which have more value than a hard drive.

The concerns about artwork and portability are valid but that may be a compromise that has to be made. I download and attach a copy of the cover with each rip, and I can always look up the info at http://www.allmusic.com/ (great site) but I will miss the liner notes.

Zaikesman’s points about the artist being denied compensation no matter what I do are logical, but still might not justify it legally. Oh well, I've got some time to think about it.

Actually, Zaikesman's argumement makes sense in a vaccuum. If you extended it out practically, it doesn't. Think about it in terms of used cars, office eqquipment, homes, whatever. The used market and new market for same type products are inexricably linked. If, hypothetically, all used CDs that no one wanted had to be destroyed, the demand for new CDs would increase. We sould move down the demand curve and the supply curve would shift. The new equilibrium market price would shift down. So in essence, the total new market wold grow but, theoretically, the total revenue would remain the same.

Not to mention all the substitute products that might "deprive" the artist of $.

http://home.san.rr.com/clapham/courses/et572/images/supply_demand.jpg

Pawlowski: Not sure I understand why, if demand for new CD's was to increase, the price would go down? Nevermind.

Edesilva: Can't see what liking the music or not has to do with anything. That it's somehow less moral if you like the music, but not if you don't? Doesn't work for me. Anyway, there is a difference between reselling one original CD and making copies to sell: In the former case, there will not be more CDs on the market than were originally produced.

Zaikesman-

The number of CDs produced is a red herring--its the number that are sold that counts to the artist. And, I think "like" is part of the moral equation, at least to the extent I was using "like" as shorthand for "being part of the universe of consumers who would pay for a particular recording"--i.e., a sale.

Pretend you could not copy CDs. Say for CD X there is a market of 1,000 buyers. Say you are one of the 1,000--you bought it and you like it. The artist gets royalties on 1,000 sales, right? Doesn't matter if there are 1,000,000 produced, right?

Now assume you can create perfect CD copies. You are one of the 1,000 who buy the CD and, again, you like it. You buy it, copy it, and resell it. Presumably the person who bought it is one of the 1,000 as well. So the artist only gets royalties on 999 sales. Now say instead of just you, everyone who buys and original does what you do. Now the artist gets royalties on only 500 sales. *That* is why I say it is morally wrong.

[I take your point about resale, but think about it... You buy the CD, don't make a copy because you don't like it, and resell it. The artist still gets royalties on all 1,000, because you aren't one of the 1,000 who would pay for the album. No harm.]

That being said, I was a kid and did what you were talking about--I bought cut-out LPs and promo copies (which don't generate royalties for the artists) and made tapes for friends, and they made tapes for me. But, this is a digital world, which changes things a bit in my mind. First, you can make exact copies. Second, you can make a lot of them. Third, it takes no time. This means that, unlike before, copyright violation is now possible on a massive scale by Joe-Bag-O-Donuts. In aggregate, I tend to dislike the idea that massive copyright violations will impact new artists ability to get recorded and be introduced to the public. Even if you don't care about the legality of the thing, think about the impact on music and artists if everyone behaves in the manner you seem to be advocating.

With all that said, I think the better solution is probably for the recording industry to adopt a business model that is more in tune with the times.

"You buy the CD, don't make a copy because you don't like it, and resell it. The artist still gets royalties on all 1,000, because you aren't one of the 1,000 who would pay for the album. No harm"

Huh? The first clause of your first sentence stipulates "You buy the CD", but you wind up saying "You aren't one...who would pay for the album." You lost me dude.

Here's the one and only difference that matters today that didn't come into play in yesteryear: People give music away by the hundreds and thousands to strangers they never met. I am ethically opposed to file sharing like that. For a valid comparison with 20 years ago, you'd have to imagine a scenario where someone buys a record, duplicates thousands of copies on cassette, and then sets up tables at downtown intersections throughout the country with signs saying "free, take one or as many as you like". For obvious reasons (not ethical ones) that didn't happen then, but the equivalent can and does happen now.