J Larsen

Agreed! I'm not going to take a stand on what's a minor sin and what's not. We can at least agree that it's not the greatest thing in the world to do. To my mind, the position you are taking here is saintly, but I see the used market as fair game for reasons stated above. Ironically, since I finished grad school and money is no longer as much of an issue for me, I find that I buy practically no used material (a few OOP Mosaics from St. Vitus last week notwithstanding), because shopping around just isn't worth the effort for me anymore. And now when I'm done with a disc I usually give it away - have to think about the ethics there! Absolutely agreed!

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 And I agree, which brings us back to our ethical difference. C'mon, Guy, if I can have a career as an economist, I think you can play the role of an ethicist on a bulletin board thread!

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? That's what I thought at first too, but I think he's really using the fact that burning cdrs is clearly harmful to show that the used cd market is also harmful. I think we all have to concede that point. The question then becomes one not of economics, but ethics - i.e. is burning a cdr somehow ethically worse than buying a used cd. I've weighed in on that and don't anticipate changing my mind, but I'm always open to the possibility...

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.

Plus that would presumably be $300 out of your budget for buying new cds.

I am completely in agreement with you on it.. Burning CD generates excess economic harm to the originators. (And so does selling used CDs.) Guy You know, I think we are on the same page, but have slightly different editions of the book. I think that granted the legitimacy of the used market, burning cds causes excess harm above and beyond the used market, whereas you see both as equally harmful. I can respect where you are coming from.

Well, I still think I demonstrated that excess economic harm is caused by burning cds. Maybe you're all just too kind to embarass me by showing where I went wrong.

Now this is what I call a Friday night!

Okay, I'll bite. Why shouldn't the second person (the one who *might* have bought new) decide not to buy the album at all? Or to look around and find another used copy? Or go home and ask a friend to make him a copy? Just because the used copy isn't available at that moment doesn't guarantee that a new sale is in the offing. I never suggested it happens every time... that would be no more plausible than suggesting it never happens. As long as there is a population of shoppers who would buy a new copy on the condition that a used copy is unavailable, then dissuading used purchases by providing burned copies leads to decreased sales of new product. It is obviously not a one-to-one correlation, i.e. not every burned copy translates into one less new copy being purchased. But neither is it a one-to-zero correlation. Therefore the economics of burned vs second hand copies do, indeed, differ.

I don't have a problem with anyone on that list. I'll probably get a lot of shit for this, but I think Van Halen was a pretty amazing guitar player. (Can't say is because I haven't heard anything he's done since the early 80s.)

An hour plus of unheard Hodges, especially if there is some Trane involved, sounds well worth the ticket to Michigan... Let me check my calendar and get back to you on this.

Not sure I want to go there but have a good time.

I'm fairly certain that Trane's relatives aren't seeing a dime... -_- On the other hand, this stuff isn't of high enough quality to likely ever see a legit release. Well, there goes that Uptown Johnny Hodges issue. Would you at least burn me a 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? 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. Again, the end result is identical: Two owners, artist paid once. In the case of the used CD, it's only one owner at a time. In the case of the burn, you have two owners at the same time. How does the first instance make the artist any richer? I guess it's kind of cheesy to quote myself, but I still haven't seen anyone counter this:

This was, uh, shared, a while back on dimeadozen.org. Should check it out. I would, but I'm not so sure about the relative ethical economics.

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. I'm with Aggie on each point here, though I'll admit no-longer-ongoing behaviour in my recent past makes me a bit of a hypocrite. Got to run down to J&R this weekend and atone for past sins...

What is a BFT?

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) Gotcha. I still think there is a distinction in the economics, though... I'll try to come back to this later. This has been a fun argument.

I agree, but to me that kind of sounds like saying petty shoplifting isn't so bad when you compare it to armed robbery. Granted, this analogy is overly dramatic, but it captures the essense of what I'm trying to say regardless. Edit: this was in reply to post 82. Can't you guys save the entertaining discussions for while I'm NOT trying to work???

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. Hey, you're the one who put "ethics" before "economics" in the thread title! I can't really agree with your footnote. It is incumbent upon market participants to know and accept the rules of their chosen market before they enter it. As a silly analogy, it would be ludicrous for a football player to complain about getting tackled; that's part of the rules he accepted before stepping on to the field. Getting kicked in the nuts while trying to get up is a different matter. BTW, are you still disagreeing that there is an economic distinction? I thought my example was pretty realistic. In any event, all you really need to do is look at total music sales over the past ten years or so to see that something has gone very wrong.

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. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to stop procrastinating on a report I should be writing...

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.

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 Quick hypothetical example: You want to buy a cd, which I happen to own. You are holding out for a cheap copy (used/promo/whatever). I burn it for you, and you decide having the cdr is good enough for you. You are now out of the market for a cheap copy, so you don't pick up the used copy that turns up in your local shop next week. Someone else walks into the store, meaning to but the cd whether new or used, sees the used copy, and makes the purchase. If you had bought the used copy, they would have bought the new copy. The artist is now deprived of their 75 cent royalty. I've seen this play out with my own eyes.

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 Because it is more akin to flooding the market with cheap used cds then selling your only copy to your friend.

Rockefeller got it with no clues!