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

FWIW, the copyright law article that appeared in the Sept. '05 Stereophile says this about fair use under the Audio Home Recording Act of '92:

"Title 17's 'First Sale' provision is intended to limit the copyright holder's control over the disposition of the protected work to the first sale. That is, once one buys a painting, a book, a CD, or another protected work, the purchaser gains the right to sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of the work. If the work is sold to another, that individual then gains the right to dispose of the work, and so on.

"There are some important caveats to the First Sale provision. First, it does not apply to a copy the purchaser makes. For example, if one purchases a CD and then makes a copy (or copies), as permitted by the AHRA, one cannot give away or sell the copies. Second, there need not be any money exchanged for a copyright to be infringed. For example, if one were to copy a book in its entirety and give the copy to a friend as a gift, one would most likely have committed an act of infringement. Ditto for a CD. In other words, if you have ever burned a CD for friend, you have broken the law. While the recording studios [sic -- author probably meant record labels] are not thrilled by this practice, they have tended to turn a blind eye to it. But now it's time to turn to the heart of the matter.

What keeps the record labels up at night is the downloading and sharing of MP3 files...it is an act of copyright infringement to share copyright-protected music over a peer-to-peer network without the copyright holder's permission."

As you can see, the question of whether the owner of a copyright-protected work can sell the work but retain copies they've made is not directly addressed. Whether this is the fault of the article, or the law, I don't know. (The article also notes that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act prohibits bypassing copy-protection in order to make copies, but that this is a separate violation and not copyright infringement per se.) If this is a complete representation of the law on the matter, then it seems to me you'd have to make the argument that selling the work while retaining a copy amounts to illegally "giving" or "selling" the copy to yourself for it qualify as a violation, a bit of a logical contortion but then what are lawyers for?

I think the main point though is that whatever the law says or appears to say, or doesn't say, law enforcement and copyright holders clearly have never been concerned with situations like Herman's. P2P file-sharing is the issue.

Zaikesman-

For a more complete discussion of the state of the law, look at the link I previously referenced. Your copy is "legal" because the making of that copy is generally regarded as fair use. The first sale provisions protect your right to sell the original, but I don't think anyone would claim that the copyright act is really abreast of the times. The "gray area" here is whether keeping a copy made under fair use and then selling the original is legal or not and, independent of that, whether or not it is morally right or wrong.

I'm not in a position to tell you it is legal or not. My personal view is that if you got hauled up in front of a court, the court would find some way of deciding that repeatedly copying and reselling different CDs probably violates fair use. Making a copy for personal use and then 10 years later giving away the CD--probably fair use.

And, I would submit that the RIAA probably *is* concerned with this. They have gone after people for all sorts of reasons, and if they found a bunch of digital copies of music on your computer, you better bet you would end up in court. Remember, the RIAA takes the position that even ripping for use on an iPod--whether you keep the CD or not--is illegal. It is all kind of irrelevant whether you would win in the end anyway. Given the vagaries of the law and the well-heeled nature of RIAA, you would probably go bankrupt defending yourself. My recollection is that they generally estimate about $250K to take a case to the Court of Appeals with decent counsel.

Putting aside the legal question, I happen to think it is wrong. You keep saying "they got the money for the CD I bought," and think that justifies your actions. But, neither the record company nor the artist got the money from the sale they didn't make--the sale that they should have made but for the fact that you pre-empted them by selling yours. This is not an indictment of resale--selling it without keeping a copy. There you aren't depriving them of a sale, because you are not a consumer who is willing to pay for what you got. In the case where you are keeping the copy, the inference is that you like it and will continue to listen to it, so you are among those who should pay to hear it.

The other recurring thing I see in this thread is people's view that "heck, I'm just one person, this isn't my problem, my contribution to the situation is negligible." That, in my mind, isn't an answer to the moral question of whether it is right or not. It may be the way you rationalize doing something that is wrong, but it doesn't make it right.

You keep saying "they got the money for the CD I bought," and think that justifies your actions

Never said that.

neither the record company nor the artist got the money from the sale they didn't make--the sale that they should have made but for the fact that you pre-empted them by selling yours

I specifically acknowledged this (putting aside caveats about whether new vs. used sales is really a zero-sum game), but noted that is perfectly legal and expected, and always has been.

This is not an indictment of resale--selling it without keeping a copy. There you aren't depriving them of a sale...

Yes you are (potentially -- same caveat as above).

...because you are not a consumer who is willing to pay for what you got

The only way you don't pay is if you buy it used and sell it used for the same amount. That's legal, but doesn't compensate the artist whether you keep a copy or not.

The other recurring thing I see in this thread is people's view that "heck, I'm just one person, this isn't my problem, my contribution to the situation is negligible."

Again, it's legal as long as you're not file-sharing or otherwise giving away or selling copies. And again, I don't think it's so simple -- wider dissemination, even uncompensated, can help the artist, not just hurt them. It's not that "I'm just one person" which is relevent -- it's that I'm not making more than one or a few copies, rather than thousands. There is a difference, and the former has always gone on, and may benefit artists in the final analysis.

When you sell the disc you are giving up your right to use it.

Herman, show me the specific article of federal law that says that. Also, does my "license" to use the legally made copy expire in the event of theft or causualty?

The artist was compensated for a copy. Every time a new copy is sold they should receive a cut of it no matter where that copy came from just like every time it is played on the radio they get paid.

This is in direct opposition to the fair use clause. As the owner of an album I have the legal right to make copies of that album for my own use. The artist and others are not compensated for each additional copy I make. It is only illegal if I try to distribute the copies. Radio stations typically make multiple copies of albums in various formats and the artist is compensated not for the copies, but for the number of times a song is played. This clearly doesn't apply to consumers.

Your comparison to pirated software is misleading. It is illegal to sell copies of software, but it is not illegal to resell the original software that I legally purchased. If I made a copy of that software prior to selling the original, it is not illegal to still use that copy. The software makers have numerous legal means to prevent this situation, if they so desire. Dongles, insertion of the original password coded disk, etc. Some do and some don't use these methods. It's there choice. This doesn't mean the use of the legally made copy is illegal, only that the software maker doesn't want you to do it.

If the RIAA or some other group wants to go to Congress and pass legislation that specifically addresses this issue, then more power to them. I just bet they'll try to hide in somewhere deep within some other bill and try to get it passed in the middle of the night. That's what people do when they try to take away property rights from legitimate purchasers.

BTW, because of bandwith and traffic issues it does costs the cable company and its users something everytime a new user climbs aboard.

As the owner of an album I have the legal right to make copies of that album for my own use. The artist and others are not compensated for each additional copy I make.

Yes you do have that right but you have misinterpreted what I said. I never said YOU couldn't use it, I said you couldn't use it at the same time others are using it. You are grasping at straws. You can make as many copies as you want for your personal use. It is obvious that no matter how many copies you make, you can only listen to one at a time. So even if you have one in your car and one at home and one at the office and one on your ipod for air travel you are only using one copy.

It is when one person pays and multiple people benefit that it becomes illegal.

It is only illegal if I try to distribute the copies.

Exactly, and thanks for making my point. There is absolutely no difference whether you keep the original and distribute the copy or keep the copy and distribute the original. You have taken one legal copy and turned it into 2, one legal and one not.

If I made a copy of that software prior to selling the original, it is not illegal to still use that copy.

That is ridiculous, of course it is illegal. Read the license agreement. If what you say is true then Microsoft would sell one copy of windows and everybody would just pass it around.

This doesn't mean the use of the legally made copy is illegal, only that the software maker doesn't want you to do it.

That is so blatantly wrong I don't know where to begin. There is absolutely no circumstance where it is legal to use one copy of a software program on 2 computers unless it is written in to the license agreement, and the vast majority of software is licensed for use on a single computer. Even the phrase "legally made copy" is silly. Ask Microsoft how many legal copies you can make of Windows. I bet the answer is zero and it has nothing to do with how diligent they are to build in copy protection.

This is clearly a case of what you think the law should be rather than what it is. You have every right to disagree with the law, but what you describe has been tried in the courts and no matter what you think it should be, it is illegal.