newberry wrote:When used CDs are sold, the artist and label don't get any money period, regardless of how many copies are floating around.

I dont know how you can say "regardless of how many copies" when that's central to the issues you raise. Though ebay and Amazon have improved used record distribution, many desirable records are more or less unavailable used. If that's the case and you want the music now, you have essentially two choices: 1) buy the record new or 2) steal it in some fashion (download, rip, etc.)

And people don't only sell CDs because they don't like the album--I'm sure many people rip CDs they love and sell them.

Ok. Then theyre thieves. I would expect thievery to impoverish anyone, artists included.

How do used CD sales help artists recoup on their costs?

They dont, but those CDs had to be purchased new originally. That was my only real point. The theft mentioned above aside, if the artist sold records that people wanted to keep, then it stands to reason that theyd be able to keep selling new records for quite some time.

newberry wrote:What do you mean, never cared about? You're responding to a quote where I mentioned people ripping and selling CDs they love.

If you are dumping reference-quality recordings presented to you as the artist intended in favor of low-quality digital representations+money, I'd posit that you never "loved" the recording in the first place. I can't imagine selling a recording that I love unless I was in desperate need of money.

newberry wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by the "purchases of recorded music" stabilizing. Could you please elaborate? And why will that be a non-issue?

Sales of reference-quality music are tanking but people are still buying it. At some point, changes in the industry will winnow out most of the unsustainable sales practices and we'll be left with the people purchasing what's left and supporting a sustainable market for music. The phenomenon of people burning CD collections then dumping them on used CD stores is only possible because 2 decades of purchasers built up collections they were never that attached to - a one-time event.

joelb wrote:

newberry wrote:What do you mean, never cared about? You're responding to a quote where I mentioned people ripping and selling CDs they love.

If you are dumping reference-quality recordings presented to you as the artist intended in favor of low-quality digital representations+money, I'd posit that you never "loved" the recording in the first place. I can't imagine selling a recording that I love unless I was in desperate need of money.

That's not exactly true. Say the person is ripping it to FLAC, it's a cd-quality rip, or in the event that it is a low quality rip, maybe the person just isn't tech savvy enough to notice. I don't think it says much in the way of loving or not loving an album.

I dont know how you can say "regardless of how many copies" when that's central to the issues you raise. Though ebay and Amazon have improved used record distribution, many desirable records are more or less unavailable used. If that's the case and you want the music now, you have essentially two choices: 1) buy the record new or 2) steal it in some fashion (download, rip, etc.)

My point is simply that regardless of the number of CDs in circulation, the artist and label don't get any share of used CD sales. I agree that if a CD is unavailable used then one must then buy it new or steal it or do without it.

They dont, but those CDs had to be purchased new originally. That was my only real point.

Right. That answers one of the questions in the OP--the difference between buying a used CD vs. a digital (illicit) download.

If you are dumping reference-quality recordings presented to you as the artist intended in favor of low-quality digital representations+money, I'd posit that you never "loved" the recording in the first place. I can't imagine selling a recording that I love unless I was in desperate need of money.

Many people are not that discriminating. There are a lot of people who love MP3 recordings that they listen to on their iPods. Obviously there are a great many people that are perfectly happy with MP3 quality, if iTunes sales are any indication. I'm not saying that you're wrong about the fidelity issue, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the question of the ethics of downloading vs. used CDs.

Skronk wrote:

joelb wrote:

newberry wrote:What do you mean, never cared about? You're responding to a quote where I mentioned people ripping and selling CDs they love.

If you are dumping reference-quality recordings presented to you as the artist intended in favor of low-quality digital representations+money, I'd posit that you never "loved" the recording in the first place. I can't imagine selling a recording that I love unless I was in desperate need of money.

That's not exactly true. Say the person is ripping it to FLAC, it's a cd-quality rip, or in the event that it is a low quality rip, maybe the person just isn't tech savvy enough to notice. I don't think it says much in the way of loving or not loving an album.

True enough, although for large collections with existing technology, those file sizes are prohibitive for my purposes. There's also the issue of having a pressed CD as an archival format as opposed to a burned one or a rewritable hard drive that's prone to failure.

Now is when I feel old.

Big John wrote:A friend of mine who owned a small indi lable told me reciently that he suspected that the reviewers were posting his records because they were availble on line before the store copies were sent out.

Precisely. A lot of people just can't wait to hear the record. I did this with the last Unwound record and by the time it was released, I was sick of it and only bought a copy out of guilt. The problem is long lead time for a pre-release press campaign. The old model is that you try to get everyone super-excited and then open the door to your product all at once. But this doesn't work anymore because the product can exist outside of its medium. CDs, records, record stores are all quaint trappings of a bygone age. Some will survive, but the process will drastically change because the medium and its physical means of distribution are no longer necessary.

Virtually every new album is posted on a blog for free, no need for shady software or secret links. Its all out in the open. And almost all of it comes from reviewers. Magazines are folding and what you're left with is publicity companies that are paid to send out CDs and get bands press for their new release. But a lot of what's left of press these days are bloggers who copy the first paragraph of the onesheet and then list a link to download the album. So essentially record labels and bands are paying someone to take the music they paid to make and put it online for free. Its a relic of a useless system that will surely pass.

So you support the art as a patron if you are so inclined. I download my fair share. And I've found a ton of music that I would have never crossed paths with were it not for this internet age. If I think I'm going to want to listen to it in 6 months, then I'll buy the record. And I try to buy from the label or the band directly. As someone who makes music, I want the people who created what I'm buying to get my money. And since there's no record store in my town, it doesn't hurt a fly.

joelb wrote:
If you are dumping reference-quality recordings presented to you as the artist intended in favor of low-quality digital representations+money, I'd posit that you never "loved" the recording in the first place. I can't imagine selling a recording that I love unless I was in desperate need of money.

My dad got rid of all his records and bought a lot of the same stuff on cd when they first came out. I think he loves his dire straights and Fleetwood Mac let me tell you. Some people get rid of their good stereo equipment and get Bose systems. They still love music though.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't pause for a second if I was buying a Stones album used, or if I found a Herb Alpert record in a thrift store for a dollar.

elisha wiesner wrote:

tw wrote:at this point in the game, there are really only a few reasons to buy a CD:

1.) so you have a hard copy backup in case your hard drive crashes
2.) to financially support the artist or record label
3.) you can't find a free copy for download

seriously?

i have very little music on my hard drive. if it were to crash i might loose some demos of my band and a few other things but like 99.9% of my music is either on lp or cd.

i'm sure i could find a free copy of tons of things. i choose not to.

i enjoy buying records, looking through bins of used stuff and checking out the new releases. i like going to the record store. if i see a band i like i will buy their cd from them. i like listening to music. this is why i buy cd's.

i'm not saying this is how i feel about the situation. i'm saying these are the reasons people buy cds.

i buy cds and records to financially support artists and to have a backup copy, and for pleasure. i work on a computer 10+ hours a day and i commute and walk up to 2.5 hours a day, so i usually listen to music itunes or my ipod.

I think attaching moral value to the means of acquisition of music is totally retarded. If you want a physical copy of a record, you should probably buy it. Anything else, do what you like and quit yapping about it.

dude, harsh.