Guy Berger

I've been impressed by Monta Ellis's play. On the other hand, four of the starters -- Davis, Richardson, Murphy and Dunleavy -- have been really horrible thus far. Guy

Sometimes we give machines less credit than they deserve. Guy

I'm not that impressed with the win over Portland. But at least they're not going to finish 0-82. Guy

The first four songs on it are fantastic but the rest is of lesser quality. Guy

I have two of his albums with Ben Folds Five. Well-crafted pop-rock. Guy

Thinking of them as a "fusion" band is a mistake, Alon. Guy

Well, I think that in general burning CDs is bad, especially in large numbers and for artists/labels that are very sensitive to small amounts of sales. That said, I think burning a small number of CDs over your lifetime (relative to how many you buy new) as a listener is a minor sin. Furthermore, if you are an individual who buys or sells lots of used CDs I would urge you reconsider. Finally, DO NOT SHARE MUSIC FILES OF IN PRINT MATERIAL ONLINE (unless it is of a Britney Spears type musician) -- I am guessing that in the aggregate this is far more harmful than burning or used cd sales. Guy

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 But you would naturally agree that that probability is less than one, so basic probability/algebra issues aside, Aggie's point is not without merit. No, it's not without merit. But as I pointed out in my 1st post in thread (way back in page 1), from this standpoint a used CD sale is WORSE than a CD burn. A used CD sale is more likely than a CD burn to be a displaced new copy. Guy

At any point in time, there is only one owner for the used cd. The artist got paid for it. The artist doesn't care about how the owners are distributed across time. He does care that at some point there were two owners, but only one paid him. Guy

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

Not quite -- it's an open question which is more harmful -- depends on a lot of variables. Guy

My feeling is that if purchasing a CD will not get any money to the hands of the originators (label, artist, etc.) you should feel free from an ethical standpoint to burn or download. It would be a nice touch to send some money to those originators if possible -- better to give it to them than to some middleman who is charging extortionate prices. Guy

And when a CD is sold used, it has two owners while the originators were only paid by one of the owners. Two owners, one price. It's the same either way. Nicely put. The only difference is how the owners are distributed across time -- simultaneously or sequentially -- but from the artist's perspective, the end result is (approximately) the same. Guy

I am completely in agreement with you on it.. Burning CDs generates excess economic harm to the originators. (And so does selling used CDs.) Guy

Why not? Show which part of my reasoning was faulty. Guy

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