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

I stand corrected.

After doing some research, it appears that no matter how one wishes to rationalize their actions, it is clearly a violation of applicable law to possess a copy without also possessing the original, and might even be illegal to have a digital copy for personal use even if you do have the original. Even though the courts have ruled that a cassette copy of materials you own is fair use, there has never been a similar ruling concerning digital copies. The RIAA still contends that any digital copies (cdr or hard drive) for any reason are illegal, but so far they have only prosecuted individuals sharing files, and not those copying for personal use.

Zaikesman, have you never bought a CD--whether because you liked the album art, liked a different CD by the same artist, got a recommendation--and then discovered you thought the album was crap? I've got no issue with returning a CD like that or reselling it. But, in that case, I'm assuming you are *not* copying it--the premise is that you don't like it. In other words, just because you ponied up and shelled out bucks for a CD doesn't mean you are one who would knowingly pay for the album--one who believes what they got was worth the price paid.

My point was that it is the number of sales that is important to the artist--a "sale," in this case, meaning someone who buys it and is believes what they got is worth the price. If you buy it, and discover you don't like it, or don't believe its worth the price, you can return it or resell it. The implication is that you are not one of the universe of people willing to pay money for that album. Hence, your resale does not impact the market for the CD.

Your premise seems to be that it is morally legitimate to buy an album, copy it, continue to listen to it, and resell it (it is clearly not legal, but that is a different issue). You are taking the benefit of the artist's work and not paying for it. [You can argue about "well, I'm paying because I get less on the resale market," but how is your argument different if you buy a CD, copy it, and then return it for full price?]

You know I am quite conflicted with the "fair use" issue we are discussing here.

File sharing is a no brainer. It's allowing literally unlimited numbers of unauthorized copies with absolutely no revenue stream back to the artist. Bad.

But if I pay $15 for a new CD, rip it, then resell it the artist still received his cut from my purchase. The artist is receiving nothing from the purchaser of the used CD.

My contention is that the person buying the used CD would not have bought the new CD in the first place. The artist is really losing nothing. Who cares if I'm still listening to a ripped copy? I paid for it and the artist got his fair cut. Just because I got $2 when I sold the used CD I should erase my ripped copy?

Sorry I just don't buy that.

And then factor into the equation just how many times a physical CD can possibly be bought at a used CD store, ripped, then resold again? I can't imagine very many iterations for any given CD. It's a completely insignificant number. Dwarfed exponentially by the possibilities of file sharing.

If there were no such thing as file sharing, I doubt this issue would even be on the radar screen. I don't recall ever bringing an LP into a used record store and being asked if I made a cassette copy of it and to make sure I erase it due to fair use restrictions.

"My contention is that the person buying the used CD would not have bought the new CD in the first place."

Why? An economist would disagree. At a minimum, you have deprived the seller of the right to sell at that price.

"I paid for it and the artist got his fair cut."

Yes, for *you* to listen to the tracks.

"Just because I got $2 when I sold the used CD I should erase my ripped copy?"

Yes. As a legal matter, you just sold your license to listen to it. As a moral matter, your sale deprived the artist--under economic theory--of a sale. I can see your argument now--"but that person would only buy it for $2, not for full list price." Well, it is the decision of the seller to price it where they believe the market lies. If they have captured the $16 audience, they could drop the price to $12 to capture additional buyers. And so on, down to the $8 buyers (just because you sold for $2 doesn't mean that the CD gets resold for $2--more likely $8 or $10).

And, can't your argument be extended to filesharing of copyrighted material anyway? "Oh, they wouldn't have bought it anyway." Too facile. [BTW, file sharing is not bad per se. Same mistake that RIAA made. File sharing of copyrighted material to circumvent ownership is bad. Don't condemn the technology, condemn the criminals.]

Try it this way. You are a talented guitar player, and make a CD in your basement. You play shows, and sell the CD for $12 a pop. You have 6000 boxed up in the basement, and sell maybe 100 per week. Not a bad gig.

You do a show, and find some guy next to you selling the CDs you made on a "used" basis for $8. You ask where they came from. You call the people that sold them. They say "well, I copied it and resold my original." Are you pissed?

You argue with the guy selling the used CDs. He says "well, I'm not messing with your sales, because the people who buy from me, while they would shell out $8, aren't willing to shell out $12. So, you aren't losing any sales." So you say, "well, it is my right to set the price where I want; in fact, I was thinking about dropping the price to $8, but you have taken some of those customers away." He says "tough nuggies, you should realize that this is going to happen and build that into your initial pricing strategy." So you say "really, so my initial customers have to pay more so that I, as an artist, can get what is due to me because of people violating my copyright?"

I personally think that kind of sucks. YMMV (your morals may vary).

You do not have to physically possess the original to legally have a copy. If you originally purchased the album and then ripped it to a hard drive, made a CD-R, etc., you have a legal right to do anything you want with that original as long as it doesn't violate the license agreement. The courts basically interpret that to mean you as the consumer don't make an attempt to economically profit from your ownership of the album. This is the heart of the "fair use" argument. Giving away or even reselling the album also have not been construed as a violation of the license. If the copying and reselling as separate acts are legal, then it is hard to argue that in combination a crime has been committed. The RIAA first attacked file sharing and argued that it was directly responsible for reduced sales. They should be happy that people are buying the albums even if they do then resell them. With their track record it not unlikely that the RIAA will try to have Congress pass legislation that does make copying and then reselling illegal.

Here's another sample of what the RIAA is up to -- click here for story

BTW, I am not an attorney and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.