So here is what I want to know:

How is buying a used CD from a single party on amazon different from downloading it for free as a bit torrent ? The artist doesn't see a penny of the used purchase. No brick and mortar record store is being supported. What if the seller uploaded the album, which he bought used, onto his hard drive before selling it to you? What if you do the same and sell it again?

If anyone can point out a moral difference I'm missing I would appreciate it.

Why would either situation come down to a moral argument, buying used, or downloading? I like buying albums used, from a record store or an individual seller, and downloading is good option to hear what something sounds like before you buy. I buy new albums too, but if I can make my money stretch a little further, used is good.

If the seller's ripping the album to his hard drive before he sells it, it's cool with me.

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.

He has been rethinking his busness as there is no way to make back the amount of pressing in the present market.

Bramble wrote:So here is what I want to know:

How is buying a used CD from a single party on amazon different from downloading it for free as a bit torrent ? The artist doesn't see a penny of the used purchase. No brick and mortar record store is being supported. What if the seller uploaded the album, which he bought used, onto his hard drive before selling it to you? What if you do the same and sell it again?

If anyone can point out a moral difference I'm missing I would appreciate it.

record stores selling used albums may have to pay royalties, like clubs do. anyone know if that's true?

other than that i see no difference for the artist.

Bramble wrote:So here is what I want to know:

How is buying a used CD from a single party on amazon different from downloading it for free as a bit torrent ? The artist doesn't see a penny of the used purchase. No brick and mortar record store is being supported. What if the seller uploaded the album, which he bought used, onto his hard drive before selling it to you? What if you do the same and sell it again?

If anyone can point out a moral difference I'm missing I would appreciate it.

Here's one difference: you can make as many digital copies of an album as you want. There are a limited number of physical CDs. It's true the artist and label don't make any money from the sale of a used CD, just like when someone downloads from an unauthorized site. I'm not saying that's an ethical difference, but I do think downloads can potentially hurt sales more than used CDs, because of the reason I just mentioned.

If you rip a CD and then sell it, it's pretty bogus IMHO, at least if you care about the label and artist. If 10 people rip and sell the same CD, that's 9 sales that the label and artist don't get a piece of.

You are not asking a moral question, but rather an ethical one.

Bramble wrote:So here is what I want to know:

How is buying a used CD from a single party on amazon different from downloading it for free as a bit torrent ? The artist doesn't see a penny of the used purchase.

We are talking here about how far copyright protection extends. When it was created, copyright literally meant the right to make copies, at that time of books, the printing press being a really big deal. At one time, the used CD in question was purchased new and the maker got his or her reward. Assuming it is not burned or uploaded, then the artist's (or copyright owner's) sole right to "copy" will not be violated, and the music will not be distributed to endless quantities of people, thereby depriving the artist of any further reward from the "copies" made by anonymous crowds of people who want to hear his or her music but are not paying for it.

Assuming there are enough used copies floating around, then yes, the music maker will not see any further reward, but that's what you get for making a record that's good enough for people to buy, but not good enough for them to keep.

No brick and mortar record store is being supported.

Why does brick and mortar matter? Amazon is being supported. If you care about the local brick and mortar stores that much, then you could have taken the record to one of them instead of selling it on Amazon.

What if the seller uploaded the album, which he bought used, onto his hard drive before selling it to you? What if you do the same and sell it again?

Then you are copying. Unless you hold copyright, you dont have the right to do that. I think that's rather easily distinguished from selling a used record.

And please dont mistake my explanation of the basics of copyright law for a defense of same, or more specifically the policies in place to protect valuable copyrights. Many things about the current state of copyright law are hopelessly broken, even if this one thing is not so much.

Skronk wrote:Why would either situation come down to a moral argument, buying used, or downloading?

Well I think people who make the music should benefitt from it. Thats what brings up the moral question for me.

Example: I read that Bill Callahan is playing a free show as part of that night clubs at noon 'do. So I go "hmmmmm I don't have any smog. I really want to hear some" So I find his myspace and just listen to the songs posted, then I start listening to Smog on various myspace pages started by fans. I've been doing that for the last couple weeks. Today I said "enough, I'm buying Red Apple Falls right now" so I go to amazon and it dawns on me that the used copy I'm about to buy helps Bill out about as much as me listening to his myspace page every day.I decided to get the LP new, still from amazon though.

I'm also stoned, maybe I shouldn't buy music stoned.

enframed wrote:record stores selling used albums may have to pay royalties, like clubs do. anyone know if that's true?

No, used stores dont pay royalties.

There is still a notable difference. I outlined it above.

This is getting a bit confusing. First of all, the OP asked about ethics, not legality. Here are a few scenarios:

You buy a new CD, don't like it, and sell it. I doubt anyone would have a problem with that, right?

You buy a new CD, like it, rip it, and sell it. Is that ethical or no? Does it make a difference if it's on a major or indie label?

You download an album from a torrent or other unauthorized site (ie, you're getting an album for free that was not intended to be free). You like it, so you decide to buy the CD, or buy the album on MP3 from Amazon or iTunes or wherever. The illegal download was not unethical, right? What if you like the album, but don't buy it, and listen to it regularly? Again, does it make a difference if it's from a major or indie label?

Bramble wrote:

Skronk wrote:Why would either situation come down to a moral argument, buying used, or downloading?

Well I think people who make the music should benefitt from it. Thats what brings up the moral question for me.

Example: I read that Bill Callahan is playing a free show as part of that night clubs at noon 'do. So I go "hmmmmm I don't have any smog. I really want to hear some" So I find his myspace and just listen to the songs posted, then I start listening to Smog on various myspace pages started by fans. I've been doing that for the last couple weeks. Today I said "enough, I'm buying Red Apple Falls right now" so I go to amazon and it dawns on me that the used copy I'm about to buy helps Bill out about as much as me listening to his myspace page every day.I decided to get the LP new, still from amazon though.

I'm also stoned, maybe I shouldn't buy music stoned.

Of course, I think musicians should benefit financially from their work, if that's the route they're taking. About something like the Smog situation, if I never heard Callahan's work, I'd be inclined to download some, and see if I like it. If I do, and want to go to see his show, then I'd be willing to spend money for a CD, or merchandise. We'd be helping him just by paying for a ticket (hoping that he gets a good percentage of the cover).