Issues Ripping CD vs. Vinyl vs. ???

[spinlps]

Not sure if this belongs here or in another fora... Misc Music perhaps? Jim, please move to a more appropriate forum if you think this is the wrong place.

I thought I'd ask the board about the ethical / moral / legal dilema of owning albums in multiple formats, taping or ripping one of the formats, and then selling or gifting the taped / ripped format.

The CD's I've sold usually fall into two categories:

1 - Owned CD, Ripped CD, Found & Bought Vinyl, Sold / Traded CD

2 - Didn't like CD

In the cases I already owned the vinyl, cassette, Reel to Reel, I would digitize the media on hand for iPod, car, office, etc...

I didn't think much of this until kiddo #2 came along and vinyl recording time went by the wayside. Recently, if I found a cheap / used CD of an LP I already owned, I've purchased it, ripped it, and traded or sold it back. I'd like to think I'll go back and record the vinyl later, but somehow I don't think I'll be able to recover vinyl recording time for a while.

I don't think this is an issue if the music has been part of the same "run." Example: I have the Conn True Blue LP, ripped the Conn True Blue CD. BUT, how does it work when they aren't from the same run... say I own an Original, Japanese or even a Classic Pressing of Cool Struttin' but I've burned the RVG. Or, in one case, I had a Mosaic box on LP and ripped a friends parallel Columbia CD Box Set for the iPod.

Am I buying a license to listen / record for personal use a piece of music, in which case I *think* I'm OK, OR am I buying a license for a particular mastering of that piece of music, in which case I think I need to keep all copies.

I was going to post a more complete list of CD's which meet this criteria, but thought I'd ask around for opinions. Obviously, the mere fact that I'm asking leads me to believe that what I'm doing might be questionable given specific combinations of formats and recordings.

Similarly, I don't think there's an issue when downloading the music from eMusic since technically I'm purchasing and keeping both formatsl... and I'm not sure I could sell emusic downloads anyway!

Thoughts on this one? What do the members in the biz think about this? Aside from ethics or personal morals, is there a legal issue here when owning / recording across formats? What do you do?

Thanks!

T

[andybleaden]

Man you need to chill

Get yourself downloading some illegal mp3 for a change!!!

Only joking

I think you are more than covered on this

Bean counters and men in suits are lookng for people selling pirated material ........not you

If you find yourself in bother it is hard to prove which copy is from which ...ie from a japanese cd or a us copy unless they are materially different..ie more tracks etc.

The main thing is that the business side want to nail people selling copies/mp3 etc illegally..you ain't selling either so you are fine

[Guest]

  Thoughts on this one? What do the members in the biz think about this? Aside from ethics or personal morals, is there a legal issue here when owning / recording across formats? What do you do?

Thanks!

T

←

A very interesting topic IMHO and one that touches many people in different ways.

Apologies for the strong feelings contained below and I have no wish to hijack your topic but I feel very strongly about it so here goes...

I have no time for most of the arguments put forward by the music industry (hereinafter called the 'Biz) about copyright theft. The fact is that the 'Biz' couldn't or wouldn't adapt to the changes in technology, the formats and the people who use them: I used to make tapes for friends as a yoof, and the habit didn't stop when CD-R came along. Nowadays I won't turn up at a friends house without another CD-R for them in my pocket - it's become part of my identity. More often than not the CD will contain music that I have recorded from vinyl. Sometimes I will take away a burned CD>to>CD-r album in return. That's what people do. The arguments will rage on forever as to whether this is morally acceptable but I'm spreading a lot of joy without resorting to dealing drugs or evangelism!

There's certainly no question that copyright infringement is occurring in both what you and I do - but you're very unlikely to be called to book for making an iPod recording from your CD, still less if you sell the CD on because you already paid the dough in the first place. The 'crime' is way more serious if money changes hands so I guess you're safe doing what you do. Me? I don't really know if I'm safe or not but one thing I do know is that I have over the years indirectly contributed to the profits of the record companies by making my friends more aware of certain artists' material inasmuch as they have subsequently purchased more of their stuff. And no, I didn't get paid for doing it ;-)

The only music I 'purchase' these days is commercial DVD-Audio, SACD or good old vinyl. For the last few years I have been making DVD-Audio discs of my favourite vinyl, at high resolution, restored by removing clicks and scratches. The results are like nothing you can buy so I really am left to wonder if I am crossing any moral boundaries? If the hi-res music was for sale I wouldn't waste the considerable time it takes to do this DVD-A thing from vinyl.

But what of the musicians I hear you ask? What indeed. I was on the 'phone the other day to an ex-member of a now cult band 'Wimple Winch' and he related the sad story of how recent reissues of the band's material resulted in zero royalties for the band members even though the sales went through the 15,000 mark in CDs. The record company cited advertising, distribution and manufacturing costs. The band got SFA. So even when you buy the 'real' thing you can't be sure any money is going to the musicians. Now of course that's an extreme example and it doesn't mean that all companies are like that or else there would be no musicians to record but it's fair to say that the Biz takes MORE than its fair share and always has done.

Right from the start of the 'home taping is killing music' campaign all the way through to Napster's destruction the Biz has been the right-wing reactionary to the public's socialist. They have consistently failed to see the advantages of having music shared between friends. Consider this: Can you think of any kind of advertising that is more cost-effective than word-of-mouth? I bet you can't. The problem for the record companies is that they are set up to SELL stuff. They are not there to promote good music, be sociable, or make useful suggestions to others. As a result they are obsessed with the need to control what people buy and even what they consider to be 'cool'. They will think nothing of spending sick amounts of money on schemes who's only purpose is to force an opinion on the public. That is the reason for MTV. That is the reason why Madonna (an otherwise failed vaudeville actress) can sell crap records to millions: the 'biz' backed her to the hilt - NOT the public. It was all down to marketing. As for those of us whose taste in music is a little more down-to-earth or just plain unusual, the 'biz' has never and will never cater for us. (Small labels are thankfully a little different but that's only because they have to be).

But most of all the Biz have a pathological hatred of people's ability to work around their plans. If this rant has any connection to the topic above then this is it. The plainest example of all this as far as I can tell is the sad tale of the 'music' CD-R.

When the technology of the recordable CD was first introduced the record companies freaked (as usual) seeing a huge threat to their profit-line projections and retail models, they rapidly set about creating the legal atmosphere and climate in which the following absurdity could take place: They forced all manufacturers of domestic CD-R recorders to include a microchip in their machines that only allowed them to function with specially formatted discs. Blank 'data' discs such as those used in computers would not work in such machines. There was no physical difference between the discs, only the formatting code. Naturally these discs cost a lot more than 'data' discs but what most people didn't realize is that the extra money went STRAIGHT TO THE RECORD COMPANIES! That's right, those unfortunate people using such machines to record their own songs were paying 'royalties' to the record companies. I'm no lawyer but if there is one out there could they please explain to me how that can possibly be legal?

Apart from those who choose to pay to walk around wearing company slogans and logos on their shirts, I can't think of a more upside-down model of reality.

AS if that wasn't bad enough, the machines were mostly limited to 1 X recording speed and would only make one copy of any given disc.

OK so obviously the Biz just wanted to discourage people making copies of their overpriced CDs but of course people just used computers instead because the Biz didn't have the power to control all computer use and manufacture - but believe me if the could have, they would have.

Another thing to bear in mind in all this is that sound quality has only very rarely been a priority of the music industry and not at all for some time. Most people will eventually agree that CD just doesn't cut it sonically, that vinyl is/was capable of delivering better sound quality and that tape/CD/minidisc/ipod etc is more for convenience than quality. There is even plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the quality of vinyl pressings was deliberately reduced throughout the 1980's in order to promote the CD format. The cost of LP manufacturing Vs. CD manufacturing would make it inconceivable that at the very least the thought didn't cross their minds. Now the Biz has 'adapted' somewhat belatedly to the new technologies, they are perfectly happy to charge good money for something that sounds like tapioca being forced through a crisp packet (MP3). So much for progress - it's still all about the moolah.

So you know what? The Biz can go sue itself. They have always done the public over in the name of profit, they have twisted the law to suit their own means, thay have forced undigestible pop music down our throats through gargantuan advertising campaigns that we didn't vote for, they have made deals with distributors, radio station tie-ins, playlisting, bribery, theft and cocaine parties for overpaid executives who...

Hmmm... calm down Col..

so I reckon that you should just carry on doing what you're doing and if you have moral pangs about making copies of other peoples music, you can always make a voluntary contribution to the PRS (which is more than the record companies do - they only do it because they're forced to!)

I will continue to make my DVD-Audio discs and burn CDs for my friends until the day the 'biz' knock on my door to take me downtown. I don't really give a darn about breaking' their' laws. If it always seems that the musicians get the rough end of the deal then I can only agree but I don't make the rules and I don't think it's time to burn all my CD-Rs in protest - that doesn't help anybody. I will continue to champion the musicians I like and I will also continue to support them through live music, DJ'ing, making my friends aware of them and generally dissing all things MTV.

I won't worry but then I am not the record companies chosen target. Neither are you so be of good cheer!

Sorry for the rant...

[andybleaden]

and there was that copyright protection...that did not last long

YEH!

Edited November 8, 2005 by andybleaden

[spinlps]

Thanks for the feedback.

I'm not too worried about "being covered" as I am about doing the "right thing"... as difficult as that may be when record companies are involved. I've kept some duplicate CD's I've ripped b/c they had extra tracks that I didn't have in other formats.

As far as artist compensation, I agree it blows. Does Tina Brooks, Ben Webster, or any other deceased player really benefit from the myriad reissue programs these days? I doubt it. I haven't donated to PRS although I try to buy new releases and even some downloads directly from the artists when possible. Still, this usually applies to alt / pop / rock and not to Jazz musicians who, for the most part, haven't embraced direct distribution... present company excluded of course.

In general, I thought it would be interesting to see what members thought about the cross format taping / ripping that goes on. With that, I'll get this list ready and post in the next few days.

Thanks again,

T

[Mr. Gone]

Not sure if this belongs here or in another fora... Misc Music perhaps? Jim, please move to a more appropriate forum if you think this is the wrong place.

I thought I'd ask the board about the ethical / moral / legal dilema of...

Yeah, at this point I thought that maybe Jim may want to move it to the fur farming forum.

[rostasi]

Every day I'm going thru some process of either recording from LP, cleaning it up,

and/or selling it on eBay. I want access to it all, but it takes up so much d**n room

that I would love to be able to mAgIcAlIfIcAlLy transform it all into one device

(maybe 1 or 2 for backup?) - or just have it all online somewhere(?)

We've gone thru this topic many times already tho - I think just last month?

If you just check the archive, it should show up - the many pages - for you.