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

Yes Herman, but at least she'll be dead before you ;^)

Herman, it is clearly illegal to make a copy of copyrighted material and then to sell that copy. There is no dispute whatsoever about that issue. Making a copy and selling the original is open to debate. On the surface both scenarios may have the same end result, but legally they are quite distinct. The principle of first sale permits a buyer of copyrighted material to resell a legally purchased copy (the original). The fair use clause allows someone to legally make a copy of copyrighted material they have legally purchased. Both are well established legal doctrines. Add them together and I believe a consumer has the right to purchase, copy and resell (the original).

My example about my family is not off-base. It's a very real example of how music is used within a household. It's driving the RIAA nuts.

Whether that right (to buy, copy, sell the original and retain the copy) exists or not, or whether it's even been addressed or determined in the law, there is still a fundamental practical difference between the two scenarios (selling the copy or selling the original) in the real world: you can only sell an original once, but you can make and sell an unlimited number of copies. The one copy/one original analogy might hold, but the industry has never been demonstrably concerned about only one, physical copy, or even a few, given to friends or family (which might ultimately help the artist more than hurt). It's the potentially unlimited number of copies presented by digital technology, available from strangers without needing to leave the house or acquire a physical object, that's made them take action. This doesn't necessarily settle the ethical or legal questions, but it is a fact.

Zaikesman, the issue is not whether the industry is going to come after you or what their larger concerns are. I agree that their real fear is mass distribution of free copies via the internet, but that doesn’t make a single free copy legal.

Onhwy61, I didn't say your story about the family was off base, it simply has nothing to do with the question at hand.

There is no way if you think about it logically that you can separate the 2 scenarios. There are numerous ways to end up at essentially the same point and none of them can be justified.

Along with my original 2 scenarios you have (among infinite others):

……..You and your friend want to save some money so on an ongoing basis you both contribute 1/2 toward the price of CDs, one time you keep the original and he gets a copy and then vice versa the next time around. Why not photocopy the album art so you have the liner notes.

……..Every time you buy a CD you make a copy for your friend and vice versa.

……..How about you form a consortium of 50 people who all contribute 30 cents and all get a copy and then you sell the original and split the proceeds.

The bottom line is exactly the same in each case. The artist is compensated for a single copy while multiple consumers benefit from his work. I’m sorry you fail to see the connection. I’m sure the artist who got screwed out of his royalties does.

Herman, I see the connection, it's just that one case is clearly prohibited by law and the other is not. That's the way the laws are written and interpreted. If you want the law changed to make both scenarios illegal, then contact your legislators.

My family scenario has everything to do with the point at hand. A family unit can purchase an album and legally make multiple copies for their own use under the fair use copyright exception. You seemingly want to argue that if the original purchased album should became lost, gifted, destroyed, or even sold, all legally equivalent acts, that the previously legal copies instantaneously become illegal. Or maybe I've misunderstood you and you think the family cannot even make copies under the fair use exception?

You seem entirely focused on what is best for the copyright holders. Purchasers of copyrighted material also have rights.