How do you feel about buying used records?

brady

Platinum Member
Polly's quote in the piracy thread got me thinking about this and thought it deserved it's own thread. Here is her statement:

A question about piracy. What do you guys think of people selling their old CDs? Should this be disallowed because the artist gains no benefit? How does it differ to the spammer? (legit product or not, unsolicited selling is still spam and I'd personally delete too).

I've often wondered this too.

I shop used records quite a lot. In fact, I would say at roughly 2/3 of my collection has come from some sort of used outlet.

I do feel a little bad that the artist doesn't get paid for that particular record. But I am supporting my local economy and the artist DID get paid for the original purchase of that record. I guess I have to be content with that.

I have been fortunate enough to meet a few professional drummers who actually get royalties and buying used records didn't seem to be an issue with them. There was no mention of, "Yeah , you should check out this record...it's a shame Max Roach doesn't get paid for it but it's worth picking up..."

What is the consensus on buying used records? Are we getting a good deal on some great music or are we ripping off the artist?
 
I suppose since no one buys new CDs anymore, the question isn't as controversial as it once was.

But I do remember going through 2, sometimes copies of many albums because of CDs poor durability. So if I saw a used one in great condition for $5.99....sorry, the label doesn't get my $16 this time.
 
An album, as a physical piece of work, no longer remains in the original owner's hands once it is passed along. The secondary market doesn't benefit the original manufacturer, and that applies to homes, cars, musical instruments, and of course, records. Not much can be done about that.

But it doesn't begin to compare to an album that has been posted on YouTube or another server, and is available an unlimited number of times to thousands or hundreds of thousands who simultaneously possess or stream it, all for free.

I've said many times, if the pirates and others who innocently post songs online for free distribution were musicians who wrote songs and had hopes of success in the music business, they would literally sing a different tune regarding their actions.

Bermuda
 
I've bought lots of CDs at used stores. I've wondered about it. It seems like the artist should get something from it. I've even bought copies of albums my own band has recorded. Of coarse it was on cassette. That seemed a little weird. The last yr. I've not bought many.
 
An album, as a physical piece of work, no longer remains in the original owner's hands once it is passed along. The secondary market doesn't benefit the original manufacturer, and that applies to homes, cars, musical instruments, and of course, records. Not much can be done about that.
Exactly. Small item or big item. Used is used.​
 
An album, as a physical piece of work, no longer remains in the original owner's hands once it is passed along. The secondary market doesn't benefit the original manufacturer, and that applies to homes, cars, musical instruments, and of course, records. Not much can be done about that.

But it doesn't begin to compare to an album that has been posted on YouTube or another server, and is available an unlimited number of times to thousands or hundreds of thousands who simultaneously possess or stream it, all for free.

I've said many times, if the pirates and others who innocently post songs online for free distribution were musicians who wrote songs and had hopes of success in the music business, they would literally sing a different tune regarding their actions.

Bermuda

Amen to all of that.
 
Pre-file sharing, ipods and such:

No problem with used CDs. When the seller sells the CD, that person gives up there use of the CD. The buyer is simply buying the rights to listen to the music the seller already paid for. As Bermuda said, it's not different than buying a used car or a used cymbal.

And most CD's I've ever purchased used were copies of albums I had previously purchased new on vinyl or cassette tape, so that artist got my money once, so I can't feel bad they didn't get from ME a 2nd time.

Today:

What bothers me is when someone copies their entire CD collection to their computer's hard drive, and then sells the CD's because they don't want to store them anymore. In this case, they are not giving up their ability to listen to the CD, or transferring the ability to listen to the music to a seller, they are selling a copy of the CD. That is steeling from the artist.
 
An album, as a physical piece of work, no longer remains in the original owner's hands once it is passed along. The secondary market doesn't benefit the original manufacturer, and that applies to homes, cars, musical instruments, and of course, records. Not much can be done about that.

But it doesn't begin to compare to an album that has been posted on YouTube or another server, and is available an unlimited number of times to thousands or hundreds of thousands who simultaneously possess or stream it, all for free.

I've said many times, if the pirates and others who innocently post songs online for free distribution were musicians who wrote songs and had hopes of success in the music business, they would literally sing a different tune regarding their actions.

Bermuda

There sure was a lot more control back before all this technological stuff started happening... the only problem was that the suits had all the control and made the lion's share of the profits. I don't buy "albums" any longer but I do purchase tracks. Most of those albums only had 1 or 2 good tracks on them anyway, unless it was hard edged jazz.
 
I've bought lots of CDs at used stores. I've wondered about it. It seems like the artist should get something from it.

There's sort of a precedent, where performers are paid for a TV appearance let's say, and are paid again - albeit at gradually reduced rates - for each re-broadcast, or re-use/new-use (such as a TV show that is released to home video.) That process would suggest that payments should go beyond the first instance of the work (or sale) in all media.

But with LPs, before UPC codes and a store's ability to track each sale, sales numbers were calculated when the product was shipped to distributors & stores (hence the old term, "shipped Gold".) It was possible to "sell" a million copies before listeners even had it in their hands. What that means is, back in the day, a record store selling a used LP didn't have a protocol to report the re-sale and generate another payment to the artist & publishers (and probabluy the label would want in on that, too.)

Fast forward to modern times, where CDs and most LPs and tapes have barcodes, and whose re-sale could easily be tracked (with some provision for indicating it's a secondary market item and not paid at the full rate.) Is it being done? I'm not sure, I suppose next time I buy a used LP or CD with its original barcode, I should notice if they read it with a scanner to log the particular title, or manually key in the sale price without any reference to the particular album.

Re-payments would seem to be fair, given the precedent in other areas of the industry, but I suspect it's grandfathered in and nobody's really addressed it despite the technology being in place. It would just take some simple programming to apply a reduced rate to those used titles, and just have the store billed quarterly for those payments.

Because there'd be no easy way to determine how many times a used item is re-sold, that same reduced payment would apply every time. in theory, and artist./publisher could make more in the aftermarket than with the initial new sales. Well, assuming people are buying music at all, which they're not. That's a bigger issue for the industry than what becomes of a physical CD after it's sold.

Bermuda
 
Fast forward to modern times, where CDs and most LPs and tapes have barcodes, and whose re-sale could easily be tracked (with some provision for indicating it's a secondary market item and not paid at the full rate.) Is it being done? I'm not sure, I suppose next time I buy a used LP or CD with its original barcode, I should notice if they read it with a scanner to log the particular title, or manually key in the sale price without any reference to the particular album.

Re-payments would seem to be fair, given the precedent in other areas of the industry, but I suspect it's grandfathered in and nobody's really addressed it despite the technology being in place. It would just take some simple programming to apply a reduced rate to those used titles, and just have the store billed quarterly for those payments.

Because there'd be no easy way to determine how many times a used item is re-sold, that same reduced payment would apply every time. in theory, and artist./publisher could make more in the aftermarket than with the initial new sales. Well, assuming people are buying music at all, which they're not. That's a bigger issue for the industry than what becomes of a physical CD after it's sold.

Bermuda

This is exactly the type of system I was thinking of regarding used music. No, I don't see it being implemented any time soon, if at all. But it would be nice to see the artists, who are losing money to digital downloads, piracy, etc. get a little money for their efforts.

I brought up the used record thing because downloading/sharing music is beyond foreign to me. I have never been to iTunes or any other site like that (is Napster still a thing?). I'm constantly harassing the "kids" at work about ripping off songs, burning them for their friends, etc. But that is all they seem to know. I honestly don't think any of them (19 to 24 years old) have ever purchased a physical piece of music. That's really sad to me.
 
Polly's quote in the piracy thread got me thinking about this and thought it deserved it's own thread.

This is a hard one to talk about, because I often find that I'm not on the same page as the people I'm discussing it with. From novel ideas on what constitutes "property" to the notion that sharing is somehow immoral and begets deprivity.... I often get the feeling that the media companies have successfully brainwashed everyone and we believe that our musical creations are anything other than a form of expression.
 
The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner. The right to distribute ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy. See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) & (c). Since the first sale doctrine never protects a defendant who makes unauthorized reproductions of a copyrighted work, the first sale doctrine cannot be a successful defense in cases that allege infringing reproduction.

You have every right to gift, loan or sell any CD, book, DVD or other "copyrighted work" that you purchase.
The media companies are trying to take away this right. They have been saying that downloads are not purchases, but rather "licenses" to play the track, among other strategies. They would like to extend that reasoning to physical media as well.
 
I'm constantly harassing the "kids" at work about ripping off songs, burning them for their friends, etc. But that is all they seem to know. I honestly don't think any of them (19 to 24 years old) have ever purchased a physical piece of music. That's really sad to me.

Bob Lefsetz and others write about this all the time. The younger generation does not need to physically own, like the past generations. They will care less about owning houses, cars, software disk...etc. and having them in their possession. They *use* what they need, then discard. It's just a different way of thinking. Where they 'get' something now is the internet, and what they get need not be physical.

I agree with you its sad. There is nothing like the artwork on an album. but when you think about it, obtaining non physical items like music for enjoyment could be more sustainable, less material. Whether it should be free is of course another matter.
 
You have every right to gift, loan or sell any CD, book, DVD or other "copyrighted work" that you purchase.
The media companies are trying to take away this right. They have been saying that downloads are not purchases, but rather "licenses" to play the track...

But any rights are not enforceable in the same way between a physical item and a digital, easily multiplied version of it. Yes, if someone has a digital file, and gives it to someone else, then deletes that file, and the recipient makes no duplicates or otherwise allows duplicates to be enjoyed... that's fine. Does that ever happen? HAHAHAHAHAHA do not make me laugh.

As for licensing or "pay as you go" media, that's becoming more prevalent. Even if a specific payment isn't made, streaming media usually involves watching an ad, and the "skip ad" versions are becoming less common. It's like watching most TV. Having to endure or wait for the commercials before the program resumes comes with the territory. Perhaps nobody's thought about it, but cable/satellite has evolved from subscription-based programming - without commercials - to running as many ads as "free" TV. I don't like the double-dipping, but what are ya gonna do? Oh yeah, do what I did - cancel cable and watch free programs.

Software has ben going that way over the last few years. You want the new Photoshop? It's a subscription. Same for Office. Owning the disc is less of an option and will soon disappear altogether.

I guess that where music and video is headed. With improved broadband speeds, streaming a video is just as smooth as watching the Blu-Ray.

Bermuda
 
I don't like the double-dipping, but what are ya gonna do? Oh yeah, do what I did - cancel cable and watch free programs.

As a person who has made their living under a special provision in our copyright law (parody), I would expect you to have a unique and interesting view on the topic.

How do you feel about the US public library system, where I can become a patron for free and borrow almost any CD/Movie/Book for free?

How do you feel about Freenet and other darkness where music (and any data for that matter) is 100% free and anonymous?

How do you feel about tribute bands not paying royalties to the artists which they are paying homage to?
 
As a person who has made their living under a special provision in our copyright law (parody), I would expect you to have a unique and interesting view on the topic.

I'm not aware of the special provision, for every parody we do, the writer/publisher is paid because we are using their music.

How do you feel about the US public library system, where I can become a patron for free and borrow almost any CD/Movie/Book for free?

Given that it was established long before the concept of digital duplication and distribution was an issue, In think it's fine. Is anyone borrowing a book, scanning or otherwise copying the pages, and redistributing the copies? I'll guess not. As for video and music copying, that's exactly the conversation that is ongoing in the industry, and government.

How do you feel about Freenet and other darkness where music (and any data for that matter) is 100% free and anonymous?

I don't know Freenet, and have never, AND I REPEAT NEVER downloaded a 'free' song. As for the payment schedules that YouTube, Pandora etc have in place, the songs may as well be free (as far as the artist and publisher are concerned.) But I think such sites and "services" need to be shut down. Music, software, art etc. has value.

How do you feel about tribute bands not paying royalties to the artists which they are paying homage to?

I don't know if the blanket licenses are enforced in every music venue, but the band itself wouldn't necessarily have to make the payment. It's like the old traveling dues that the AFM enforced. There were occasions where the local collected dues on behalf of the bandmembers (who were supposedly taking work away from members of that local, so the local couldn't collect a cut from them) but Al paid those, not us.

Bermuda
 
I'm not aware of the special provision, for every parody we do, the writer/publisher is paid because we are using their music.
Parody is protected under the fair-use provision of copyright law.

I don't know Freenet, and have never, AND I REPEAT NEVER downloaded a 'free' song.

It's a fascinating concept that's perhaps left to another thread.
 
Parody is protected under the fair-use provision of copyright law.

You mean... we didn't have to pay all of those writers over the last 31 years??!!

Now I feel like a chump.
 
Back
Top