Guy Berger

Exactly, but... No. You don't create a CD-R out of nothing -- it was also bought by someone along the line. Guy BUT there are now two copies and the originators were paid for only one. As I showed before, if our primary objective is to maximize originator income then this is not relevant. Guy

Exactly, but... No. You don't create a CD-R out of nothing -- it was also bought by someone along the line. Guy

Jim, I don't think this comparison is appropriate. The key assumption driving your results is the different number of original new copy sales, not the change in behavior (from used CD to burn). We should instead hold the number of initial sales constant and vary the behavior alone. i.e., compare two used copies to two used copies & two burns. What I am trying to say is that we are trying to figure out if used sales are worse than CD-R copying. To determine that we need to hold the initial number of copies available constant and compare outcomes under used sales and CD-R copying. If we don't, that gives misleading results. I will think a little more and see if I can explain it more clearly. Guy

Why was he trying to break in? Guy

Hey, I'm not trying to argue that burning CDs is ethical. All I am trying to argue is that if burning CDs is unethical, then it seems to me that economics would suggest that selling/buying used copies is as well. Guy (not an ethicist)

Again, probably not as bad economically (for an individual copy) for the firm as a used sale. I don't know anything about this industry, though. Guy

This may be because of music sharing, not CD-R burning. (Though a single shared copy is not as harmful to the artist as a used CD sale, the problem is sharing on a mass scale.) Guy

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. Sorry, Aggie, but this is incorrect. The artist/label/whatever would have pocketed $18 had the used CD sale not taken place. In an economic sense, the used CD sale is an $18 loss for the artist/label/whatever. This is just a logical deduction from my assumptions. If you have a different definition of "loss" from the economic one, then we may just be disagreeing about definitions. Guy

By the same rationale, one shouldn't sell used CDs. Guy I disagree, because the artist knows that's part of the bargain he's made at the time he signs his contract. The artist also knows that there will be some CD-R copying. Perhaps I am not understanding your point. Guy The artist knows that the law allows for orignal purchaser of his cds to resell their copies. He also knows that the law does not allow people to burn copies of his cds and distribute them. Given that the artist knows that when they make the decision to enter a recording contract, there can not be an ethical problem with the buying and selling of used copies of his music. The same can not be said of burning, which does do further harm to the artist above and beyond the existance of the used market. I'm going to let you have the last word on this line of argument* because I'm not an ethicist and don't feel I have a particularly qualified opinion on this. I will continue discussion on the economics of the issue. Guy *Except one: just because a behavior is legitimated by a recording contract does not make it ethical.

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. Two copies of the CD are now in existence. Aggie -- Let's assume that there are two individuals, one of whom originally purchased a new copy of a CD and another who is willing to pay up to full price for that CD. Consider two scenarios: 1) The owner of the CD sells it to the other individual. The artist/label/whatever is not compensated and loses the full price of the CD they would have obtained had this transaction not taken place. One copy of the CD are now in existence. 2) The owner of the CD copies it for the other individual. The artist/label/whatever is not compensated and loses the full price of the CD they would have obtained had this transaction not taken place. Two copies of the CD are now in existence. What you are arguing is that the artist doesn't care about his income ("the artist is happy" with the used sale), but rather about how many of the copies in circulation he's been compensated for. I am not sure this is plausible. Guy

By the same rationale, one shouldn't sell used CDs. Guy I disagree, because the artist knows that's part of the bargain he's made at the time he signs his contract. The artist also knows that there will be some CD-R copying. Perhaps I am not understanding your point. Guy

Well, a used copy only resulted in compensation on its original sale -- the same thing with a CD-R copy. 1) Who said we are talking about indiscriminate burning? I assume we are talking about someone burning a copy or two for his friends. I agree that indiscriminate anything -- burning, sharing online, or used CD sales -- will be harmful to the income of an artist. 2) The artist received compensation for the original sale of the music -- just as they did with a used CD. Maybe compensation for each copy is owed to the artists in some sort of mystical, metaphysical sense. But the only thing that matters to the artist's income is compensation for each sale. Guy

By the same rationale, one shouldn't sell used CDs. Guy

From the artist's perspective, how is this different from a used CD sale? Guy Because it is more akin to flooding the market with cheap used cds then selling your only copy to your friend. Not necessarily. It is flooding if you share it on an online network with a lot of people. (Though as I stated, the amount of displaced sales is much smaller than the number of circulating free copies.) It's not flooding if you only make one or two copies for your friends. Guy

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. I don't see why the number of copies in existence is relevant in terms of outcomes -- all the artist/label/copyright holder should care about is the number of (potential) new copy purchases. I'm not sure why they would care about an abstraction. (I'd be curious if you'd explain why you disagree with this statement.) N copies of one original CD cause some new copy purchases to be foregone. N used CD purchases cause some (probably more) new copy purchases to be foregone. Guy

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

Chewy -- is it named after the song by Traffic? Guy

I can't believe the Warriors lost to the Lakers sans Kobe. This is going to be a long season. Guy

Erik, This is a good point on the abstract ethics of the situation, but I don't see it having any bearing on the actual outcome: are any actual sales (and therefore artist income) displaced? As I said, as far as the artist/label is concerned, a single CD-R copy is less harmful than a used CD purchase. As Jim S. points out, yourmusic/BMG purchases are probably also worse than CD-R copies (though not as bad as used CD purchases). As far as prescriptive ethics I don't have much to say except: if you know that you would never actually buy a new copy of a CD, you can burn a copy with a clear conscience. (If you feel guilty send a few bucks to the label.) Guy Guy

I had an odd thought in a discussion about the ethics and economics of used CD sales and CD burning. Generally we think of buying used CDs as a more ethically sound behavior than burning copies of CDs. When you think of the economics, things reverse. A person burning a CD copy (and paying presumably $1 or whatever for the price of the blank) is less likely to be willing to pay the full price of the new CD than the person buying a used CD (and paying, say, 50% of the list price). In other words, a single used CD sale is more likely to be "income foregone" for the artist/label than a single CD-R copy. Guy

The race for 1st place in the central is going to be tought this year -- Detroit, Chicago and Cleveland are all going to be really good. I think the ranking will be Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland. LeBron will get better but he needs a lot of help -- the rest of his team isn't good. Go Warriors! Guy

So what's the answer they wanted? Another nomination for 5050 - sum. Epithet -- that is the answer the bastards expected. If you want I will forward your resume. Guy

There is no "other dollar". The $2 comes out of the $27. Guy

Yikes. The Bulls are going to be really, really good this year. Guy

Mainly the saint, maybe the band ... also a Horace Silver tune on "Blowin' the Blues Away" named after the saint (or was it the disease?) The song is named after the disease, I think. Guy