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

So you really don't think a household can make multiple copies?

I didn't say that. I simply asked you to reference a law that specifically allowed it just as you challenged me previously.

I don't want to screw the artist, but I certainly don't want to get screwed by them either.

That is comical. How can you possibly believe that not being allowed to make multiple copies of their copyrighted work is somehow screwing you??

I give up. You clearly have no concept of what is fair when it comes to intellectual property.

Hey, at least people have stopped posting inviting you to please send them your orphaned CDs ;^)

An interesting topic - there was an excellent article in Stereophile (I believe) a while back talking about copyright law and how it applied to music. My recollection was that the laws allow for a lot less than most of us think they do, but I don't remember the specifics. I'll have to dig through my old issues to see if I can find the article.

It's an interesting topic because there are several scales to evaluate it on - legality, fairness, common sense, etc. I'll admit that I would have just assumed that it was illegal to buy a CD, make a copy, and then sell the original, but I certainly don't know that it is based on my reading of the laws.

It's interesting to me that it is mentioned several times in this thread that the RIAA isn't worried about the single copy given to a friend, that they're focused on stopping the mass duplication. One scan of the ebay CD listings shows any number of people who openly are selling 1-1000 CDs because they have "ripped all the CDs to my computer and don't need the CDs anymore". I'm sure enforcement costs $$$, but if somebody is worried about this practice, they could certainly mount enough of a charge to scare people into at least not admitting in writing of what they're doing.

On the fairness scale, I'm not sure it's all that clear. At what point is one depriving the label and/or artist money? Is having a copy of a CD for which you don't own the original the equivalent of having stolen goods? If there was flat out zero chance you were ever going to pay a penny for a CD, have you deprived anybody of revenue by having the copy?

It seems like the scale is infinitely granular and everbody decides for themselves where right stops and wrong begins. Personally, I have a couple thousand CDs and I have never downloaded a song, legally or otherwise, off the internet. But I can certainly see lots of scenarios where people would and it wouldn't deprive anybody of a penny of revenue, because it wasn't ever going to be spent anyway. That doesn't necessarily make it legal or fair.

Regardless of what is legal or fair, I think the constant implication that the complete underpinnings of recorded music's woes is illegal copying is insulting. Has there ever been a bigger tidal wave to a major industry that was so unprepared for, and so poorly responded to as digital music and advances in technology? Clinging to the notion that you can charge $12.99 for a copy of Heart's Greatest Hits in 2006 and that you're going to be able to legislate your way to enforcing it, while wondering why sales are down is plain comical.

If you carry the conservative argument to its logical limit, we should not be able to gain the benefit of enjoyment of any copyrighted music without paying for it directly or indirectly. Are the kids in the park break-dancing to a boombox and encircled by a crowd of enjoying onlookers while passing the hat illegally charging for a public performance without compensating the artist? You could make that argument. And what about taping off the radio, something that was pretty common in days of yore (and some of us still do on occassion)? Is not the internet just the new radio?

I think one of the problems with the strict constructionist view is that it is historically, prehistorically, and perhaps even genetically disconnected from the ways which people traditionally invent, perform, propagate, receive and employ music. Music is tens of thousands of years old and universal, while copyright law and recorded sound are fairly new developments and culture-specific. Prior to the last few hundred years, all music was "folk" music, and until very recently most music still was. Perhaps our natural heritage as human beings is part of the reason we might find it understandably difficult not to consider the music we love to be "ours" in some deeper way, no matter who wrote it or how much we respect the concept of intellectual property rights in the abstract. That might sound like a rationalization, but I think it correlates strongly with reality. I do believe that once an artist puts a work out into the world, it ceases to be theirs in many ways -- especially if it is successful -- and that this is an integral part of both the bargain and the attraction which comes with being recognized for one's work.

How can you possibly believe that not being allowed to make multiple copies of their copyrighted work is somehow screwing you??

My understanding of the current law is that I am allowed to make multiple copies of purchased copyrighted material for my own use. If this right is taken away from me via new legislation, then I've been screwed.

I notice that you original argument was against the right to resell the originally purchased album. You've seemed to have shifted to declaring that simply making multiple copies for personal use should also be stopped. Will your next argument creep to prohibiting any copies? The reason I ask this question is because that also appears to be the pattern of the RIAA.

Finally, I'm not talking about what is fair, I'm talking about what is legal.