Aggie87

All I know from Free is "All Right Now", which got overplayed to death. Are they worth checking out, or are they more a proto-Bad Company?

Happy Birthday GA! Appreciate your contributions to the board!

Not sure if any of these have received mention here yet. From musictap.net:

John McLaughlin - Industrial Zen Joe Lovano - Streams of Expression Ralph Towner - Time Line Tears for Fears - Gold Lynyrd Skynyrd - Gold Smokey Robinson - Gold The Mavericks - Gold Judy Garland - The Essential Pearl Jam - No Code Dire Straits/Mark Knopfler - Best of/Private Investigations Dinosaur Jr. - Green Mind

There were quite enough nuts in this thread already, Jazzmoose!

A CD is a commodity, just like a car, guitar, microwave oven or any other product that can be legally purchased. Ownership of any of those products can be transferred by sale, gift, etc. All producers of those products are paid upon initial sale of the item, and give up any further claim to that piece of product, don't they? Why should a CD be considered any differently? There's nothing ethically wrong with transferring ownership of anything you've legitimately purchased. There is something wrong with duplicating something for which you don't have that right. It's introducing additional product into the market at prices far lower than the going price (in the case of CDRs, essentially free product). How can anyone say this is legitimately good for anyone on the "producing" side of the equation?

No! Neither a CD-R nor a used CD sale is necessarily a foregone sale -- there is a sizeable probability that the individual would never have bought the CD at full price. (Emphasis in Aggie's post is mine.) Guy Nobody else has the right to make the decision to create that CDR though. You're trying to justify an illegal, unethical action. And again, if the "second owner" (of the CDR) wouldn't have bought the music legitimately, what RIGHT does he have to have it on CDR? edit - and it DOES halve the income of the artist, in that copies are being circulated without due compensation.

At any point in time, there is only one owner for the used cd. The artist got paid for it. That's NOT the same as creating a CDR, which doubles the number of owners of the music, and halves the income of the artist/producer etc.

Guy - I don't think it's fair to set the parameters as you want to. The used cd is still a legitimate copy of the music, while the burned CDR simply isn't. Transferral of ownership of a legitimate CD is a legal action, burning a copy of a legitimate CD is not. One of the problems with your thesis is that "initial sales" are taking place constantly, not just at one single point in time. There are new customers entering the market all the time, and other people who discover a particular title at different points in time.

And yet - in an example that probably hits closer to home for many of us - what if that CDR is of an album that we either wouldn't or can't buy otherwise: for example, an album by an artist who we're not sure we'd like, an oop album, or a rare/expensive import - or old vinyl? If it weren't for free radio, library loans, used LPs (and CDs), generous friends, and (more recently) on-line downloads, the breadth of my jazz listening would be much more limited than it is now. Heck, how does one go from Miles and Brubeck and Coltrane to Charles Tolliver, Misha Mengelberg, and Von Freeman without being exposed to them in ways other than buying their albums outright? It's hardly a "lost sale" when you wouldn't buy that artist's work anyway, but the exposure might give that same artist a sale down the road. I'll agree things get greyer and greyer when you're talking about OOP albums. I've made that point (I think) on previous threads about this same topic. For imports and rare/expensive stuff, that's why you go to work, earn a salary, and hopefully have disposable income. That's why we all work, isn't it? To provide a living for ourselves? But if it's something in print, but you wouldn't buy otherwise, why would you want to have a CDR of it? That's just theft again, to me. I do agree with the point that it may result in a sale down the road, in SOME cases, but I doubt alot of the teens out there burning copies left and right for their friends are going to buy 50 Cent's next album because they got a burn of his last one. They'll just want a burn of the next one too.

Big Friggin' Taco

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing...LOL. I still see the used cd scenario as dealing with one legitimate copy of music in existence, for which the artist was paid. The artist etc. would have pocketed an additional $18 if both the first owner kept his copy of the CD, and the second owner chose to also purchase a legitimate copy of the CD. In that case there would be a market demand for two copies of the music. Since the first owner decided he didn't want that music anymore, and knows there's a secondary market for CDs (like autos), he chose to sell the CD and the listening rights to someone else interested in purchasing a used CD. In this case there is only a market demand of one copy of the music. Creating a CDR copy and passing it on to a friend means there is a market demand of two copies, and the artist has only been paid once.

I stayed in a youth hostel directly in the center of the red light district one time, probably about 20 years ago as well. I doubt it still exists, but it was an eye opening experience, figuratively and literally. I'm guessing that wouldn't suit your interests today

Under scenario 1, the artist (+ all others associated) received compensation for the 1 copy in existence. Ownership transferred hands. The artist did not lose anything, because the first owner has simply transferred ownership of the copy (and listening rights) to the second owner. The first owner no longer has rights to that music. One copy of the music and the listening rights were sold/purchased, and the artist was paid accordingly. Under scenario 2, there are now two copies of the music in existence. As you said, the artist lost full compensation for the second, burned copy. The first owner still has listening rights, but the second "owner" does not have legal or ethical listening rights to this music that is now in his possession. Regarding your final coment, my argument was that the artist was happy with the original sale of the CD, and compensated for it appropriately. I am arguing that the artist does care about his income, and should be compensated/receive income for all copies of his/her music that are out there. CDRs screw the artist.

You're right, the used copy resulted in compensation on it's original sale. The artist is happy. The fact that it changes hands later on is not relevant to the artist - he/she has been paid what's due them. The CD-R copy did NOT result in compensation, unlike the original. It's an additional copy of the music that is now in existence that has not compensated the artist. The artist is not getting paid for this copy which you are getting without paying for. THe CD-R copy is in effect a sale of that music for which the artist received no compensation/income.

If I'm a young jazz fan (say an Aric Effron or a Jazz Kat aged person), and I love the music and want it all, what is more beneficial to the long-term viability of an artist - people purchasing legitimate copies of the music (new or used, both of which result/resulted in compensation) or indiscriminate burning, which results in an artist getting no compensation for the music that you are passing on to others? The number of copies in existence is a legitimate issue. Compensation for each copy is owed to the artist/producer. What "right" do you have to legally make copies of cds and give them to others? None, legally. And in my opinion you have none ethically either, if you really want to support the music and the people that produce it.

But now your friend is getting an illegal copy of that music, for which the artists etc received no compensation. Your original copy is fine and legitimate. Don't you get that? From the artist's perspective, how is this different from a used CD sale? Guy My point exactly, thank you. In both cases, the artist was compensated once, when the original copy was sold new. In both cases, the music is passed on to another listener without compensation to the artist (or other copyright holders). If you object to burning on ethical grounds, you must also object to the buying/selling of used CDs. I disagree. In the case of burning a cd, you have created a new copy of that music for which the artist/producer etc has never been paid what's due. 2 copies of the music, artist paid once. There is a difference between that and the used cd, which DID pay whatever money was due. 1 copy of music, artist paid once. How is the first case acceptable? If you're the artist, how many copies of music do you want out there that you've been paid for? Do you want to only receive compensation for 1 out of every two copies of your music that is in people's homes, or for each copy?

But now your friend is getting an illegal copy of that music, for which the artists etc received no compensation. Your original copy is fine and legitimate. Don't you get that?

I'm down with the old man.

They did get paid for the used copy, on its original purchase. That's the difference. They aren't getting paid on the copies you burn for your friends. When you are comparing buying a used copy versus buying a new copy, then I think the artist would obviously prefer you buy the new copy, since that results in an additional sale and revenue. But that used copy did what it was manufactured to do, already. The burned copy does not result in payment to anyone who is entitled to payment for that recording.

for both!

Definitely not without some clues! That's quite a good challenge there. Those can be fun or frustrating, if you can't find that one bridge to the solution.

I was going the "twin" route too. If you consider the available options: 1. 1, 1, and 11 (product = 11) 2. 2, 2, and 9 (product = 36) 3. 3, 3, and 7 (product = 63) 4. 4, 4, and 5 (product = 80) 5. 0, 0, and 13 (product = 0) But in order for one of these to be the solution, you'd have to have a reason to know there are twins (which we don't), and you'd have to know what the house number is. edited to include option 5 (youngest two sons just being born that day), though that's probably not really an option, since there wouldn't be a House #0.

I'm curious to know the answer to this one. Is that actually enough information to make this solveable?