Another thought though is that the artist got their royalty when their CD was first purchased, which the original buyer paid when he or she made that transaction. If the CD was ripped and sold on, is the artist legally entitled to another royalty payment? Is the record company also due another slice? I am not sure on the law here.
If the selling on of CDs and vinyl then funds the purchase of new material then it could be argued that ‘recycling’ music has a beneficial effect.
Like you, Tidal has prompted me to sample, and then buy, more CDs that I have ever done in the past. Again an argument in favour of subscription streaming.
Nothing in life is as straightforward as it might seem.
Reselling the CD should not generate royalties but if someone is copying the material then selling to another they are depriving the artist from another sale. Goes with Art work, photography, books, sheet music, software, anything that is copyrighted or intellectual property should not be duplicated unless it is a backup copy for use by the original buyer.
I do not know how many time I have been offered a copy of software or a copy of a CD from someone and I turn it down. The person will sometimes give me a look like I have two heads… with a comment, everyone does it.
It is a personal choice and everyone has to make up their own minds on how they want to live their life in this crazy world.
I agree Seakayaker - the scenario you describe is not on. You are describing pirating which can never be defended. I was referring to a CD paid for in full from a legitimate source, then ripped and the CD then sold on. A very different matter I am sure you will agree.
…in the senerio you describe, a single copy of a popular CD could be bought and sold on multiple times, lets say a dozen. The artist could have received royalties on a dozen sales for their work. In this case they get royalties for ONE CD yet 12 buyers get a deal from the sweat and toil of the musician(s) who wrote and performed the music.
So if I sell on a CD, I need to delete the ripped file from my NAS. That is why I have a lot of shelves and boxes full of CD’s laying around.
Once again this is a choice I made after watching many people who used to be able to make a living through their art, writing, photography, music, software development and /or intellectual property they owned and was replicated or stolen and then given away to others or sold.
…and or course the people who did the work up front are deprived of their share for the work they put into producing the (fill in the blank).
I understand what you are saying. It is the seller AND the buyer of the secondhand CD who are responsible for this. The sellers can of course be multiple entities - the original owner, retailer and auction sites for example.
Although I (and many on here I would wager) have bought some secondhand CDs, I also buy many new CDs. Many of the secondhand CDs I buy, I would not pay full price for, so in my case the artist is not being deprived of another royalty from a new CD sale. For others of course this may not be the case. I too retain all the hardcopy CDs I buy, mainly because I want the ability to re-rip should my server/NAS decide they want to ruin my day.
However, you make a good point and it is the ability to copy digital media that is of course at the heart of this problem.
I know there has been a long-standing argument over copywriting CD material and I am not sure what the answer is.
Copywriting covers the sheet music and the performed music. If a person is copying the music and then selling on the original it is an infringement of the copywriter agreement. So if any time you sell on the original work you have given up your rights to the music. Keeping a copy would fit into the clause on the back of the CD that usually states: “Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws.”
" What rights you have once you own a copyright in your work
As the owner of a copyright, you are granted certain exclusive rights. These include the right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work, to distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public, to perform the copyrighted work publicly (note that this does not apply to sound recordings), to display the copyrighted work publicly, and in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. (17 U.S. C. §102)).
More specifically, your copyright gives you the right to record your music, sell or otherwise distribute copies of your music in various formats (i.e., vinyl, CD, digital download, etc.), make new works from your original work such as sampling your music to create a new song, perform your music in public, post your music online, and stream your music. Not only does a copyright give you the right to do these things with your music, but it allows you stop others from doing these things with your music without your permission."
So my understanding is the original owner can have his work copied and distributed through sales of his CD’s but the buyer does not have the right to copy and re-distribute. You do have the right to re-sell the CD but you do not have the right to keep a copy of the music.
Just the way I understand how the laws work here in the USA.
Perhaps there is a lawyer on the FORUM who could put a different perspective on the subject.
I think I remember this topic being debated more than once on the old forum but surely worth going through it again.
This has reminded me, if nothing else, to delete my soft copy of a ripped album should I decide to sell on any CDs. Having said this, the artist (and owner of the copyright if a different entity) is still being deprived of a payment if the buyer of my secondhand CD would have bought a new copy.
I also have some concerns that if the industry and the law were to come down hard on reselling music material, the cost of music ownership will go up and might hit the sale of new music material hard, having an undesired consequence.
Trouble is the resale of cd,s is hardly worth the effort…i had 50 or so that i thought could go and the prices offered were 10 pence or so. So left them on the hard drive and forgot them…perhaps others could be bothered for £5 or so? Perhaps i will take them to a charity shop one day.
I’m sorry but I don’t agree with some of the sentiments above music is for everybody and if the only way someone can enjoy as much new music as the next person is by burning a CD and then selling it buy more music I have no problem with that at all.
As a young person I myself have done exactly that albeit with cassette and vinyl and feel no guilt whatsoever. I also burned many CDs and gave the originals to charity and again feel no guilt.
Sometimes the moral high ground is bank balance dependent I’m afraid and this is one such case.
I very much doubt that the average buyer of a 2nd hand CD for £1 or so from a charity shop or Amazon Marketplace would, were that not available, pay £10-15 for a new copy. If I’m correct this means the moral objections based upon depriving an artist of royalties are largely unfounded. As far as the legal niceties are concerned, what worth has a law that is virtually unenforceable forbidding a course of action that is virtually undetectable? At least in this scenario one full price CD has been purchased, from which the artist has received anything between 15-20% of the proceeds. Compare this with the returns for the artist from commercial streaming, which, as far as I’m concerned, is almost legalised theft. Unlike some I don’t hold dogmatic, inflexible views on this subject, but I don’t think the situation is quite as black and white as some would paint it. Many people are a little too quick to gallop up the hillside of moral high ground.
JMO.
I buy a fair number of cd’s from charity shops often at 3 for £1. I mostly have never listened to anything by the artist, but at the price I am happy to take a chance. If I don’t like a cd, it goes straight back to the charity shop and they can sell it again. If I do like a cd, I might be inspired to listen to other stuff by that artist and likely go and buy more of their work from a cd shop.
I recently picked up a copy of Alisha’s Attic from a charity shop and on playing it was happy with the purchase for 33p. I also had a listen to more of their stuff on Tidal, and subsequently went to HMV and bought more of their albums. So a chance purchase in a charity shop led to more purchases in a record shop and therefore more royalties to the artist. Would I have ever picked up an album by Alisha’s Attic in a record shop before. No.
See Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art
CDs are not original works of art, of course. They are all copies.
According to Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres droit de suite was created in France following the sale of Millet’s 1858 painting, the Angélus, in 1889 at the Secretan sale. The owner of the painting made a huge profit from this sale, whereas the family of the artist lived in poverty.
Doesn’t appear that this is going to catch on any time soon. I see that, by and large, it is only paid in Parisian auction rooms, where degressive rates have had to be introduced to protect them from the London and New York auction rooms where it isn’t levied. Yet another faintly ridiculous European imposition that is grist to the Brexiteers’ mill.
Yes the second hand CD (or vinyl) might be a bit hard to enforce but I’m sure you’ll find that it the intention was to to protect artists (painters, photographers, etc). There’s been plenty of cases where a unscrupulous galleries have sold at a much reduced rate to a “friend” then assist to resell at a much higher price. Before that law the artist wouldn’t have been entitled to anything from the second sale.
I’m pretty confident that if it was your source of income you wouldn’t refer to it as ridiculous.
Right now my collection is 13.925 and it’s still growing quite rapidly. In a way I am sad about it as it’s practically impossible to listen to all even if I would be retired.
I am sometimes discovering a new artist and have a completist type of approach, where later on I realize I only a fraction of the albums is really good, but at the same time also sometimes I have nice discoveries this way.
I also sometimes buy something with the intention of exploring a new area of music for me. I had this for instance last weekend with some good deals from Qobuz on Opera Music…
Now what is the correct size of the collection. I guess if I really would concentrate on the albums which I will run more often the collection will most probably be just 1/10th of what I have right now, given my broad interests.
However I also think it doesn’t hurt me to have the albums on my NAS and sometimes go deep in my listening.
As a final note, yes I have the ambition to be more selective, but I am not sure if I am disciplined enough as well, it’s also a kind of addiction.
