On the relative ethics and economics of used CD sales and cd burning

[Alexander]

Why? The question is what is the difference between giving a CD-r copy to a friend or that friend buying a used CD.

Exactly, but...

The difference is that the used CD was at least bought by someone along the line. The CD-r is a new creation that will never generate income for anyone.

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.

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.

[Guy Berger]

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.

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

Edited November 4, 2006 by Guy

[Guy Berger]

BUT there are now two copies and the originators were paid for only one.

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

[J Larsen]

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.

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.

[Guy Berger]

I agree that burns of in print items are a no no. However....What about burns of l-o-n-g out of print material????? Say, something like Black Ark???

Instead of offering a hypothetical situation I'm going to give a real example. I've spent the past few months trying to track down a copy of Black Ark(in lp or cd format) on Ebay. No such luck. The last lp went for $153 and the last two cd auctions went for $305 and $309. That's a lot of money. A lot of money that Noah Howard is never going to see while this recording remains OOP. Now what if someone, as myself, made an attempt in good faith to obtain a copy through the legitmate secondary market fails to do so?? Am I to spend the rest of my life not being able to hear this music?? That doesn't really seem fair.

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

[Guy Berger]

whereas you see both as equally harmful.

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

Guy

[Aggie87]

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.

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.

[J Larsen]

I agree that burns of in print items are a no no. However....What about burns of l-o-n-g out of print material????? Say, something like Black Ark???

Instead of offering a hypothetical situation I'm going to give a real example. I've spent the past few months trying to track down a copy of Black Ark(in lp or cd format) on Ebay. No such luck. The last lp went for $153 and the last two cd auctions went for $305 and $309. That's a lot of money. A lot of money that Noah Howard is never going to see while this recording remains OOP. Now what if someone, as myself, made an attempt in good faith to obtain a copy through the legitmate secondary market fails to do so?? Am I to spend the rest of my life not being able to hear this music?? That doesn't really seem fair.

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

[Alexander]

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.

At any point in time, there is only one owner for the used cd. The artist got paid for it.

ONCE, not twice. And yet here we are with two owners.

[Guy Berger]

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.

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

Edited November 4, 2006 by Guy

[Guy Berger]

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.

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

[Alexander]

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.

At any point in time, there is only one owner for the used cd. The artist got paid for it.

Besides which, if we are counting owners, what happens when a couple buys a CD together (he pays half, she pays half)? Or if eighteen people each contribute one dollar to buy a CD and then make an agreement that each person gets the CD for one day at a time, making a complete circle every eighteen days? We have CDs with between two and EIGHTEEN owners! Yet the artist was only compensated one time! For shame! We should really crack down on mulitple ownership.

"Sorry, kids. You each have to buy a copy, otherwise you can't listen..."

[Chalupa]

I agree that burns of in print items are a no no. However....What about burns of l-o-n-g out of print material????? Say, something like Black Ark???

Instead of offering a hypothetical situation I'm going to give a real example. I've spent the past few months trying to track down a copy of Black Ark(in lp or cd format) on Ebay. No such luck. The last lp went for $153 and the last two cd auctions went for $305 and $309. That's a lot of money. A lot of money that Noah Howard is never going to see while this recording remains OOP. Now what if someone, as myself, made an attempt in good faith to obtain a copy through the legitmate secondary market fails to do so?? Am I to spend the rest of my life not being able to hear this music?? That doesn't really seem fair.

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

Correct.

[Aggie87]

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.

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.

Edited November 4, 2006 by Aggie87

[J Larsen]

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.

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.

[Guy Berger]

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.

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

Edited November 4, 2006 by Guy

[J Larsen]

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.

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...

[J Larsen]

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.

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!

[Neal Pomea]

When A burns B a copy of a CD, and B buys works by the artist because her interest was aroused, it seems ethical and economical to me for the artist, the publisher, and owner of the master to pay A for the publicity and marketing. For 2, 3, or 4 generations.

Facetious? The US copyright law seems facetious.

Edited November 4, 2006 by It Should be You

[Aggie87]

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...

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?

[Guy Berger]

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!

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

[J Larsen]

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.

Agreed!

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.

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.

Furthermore, if you are an individual who buys or sells lots of used CDs I would urge you reconsider.

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!

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

Absolutely agreed!

[J Larsen]

Guy, I should have thought of this a couple pages back: Doesn't it stand to reason that the right to transfer ownership of a legit cd is priced into the original, new copy? And does it not follow that artists would expect to receive smaller royalties on new purchases if this right did not exist?

[RDK]

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...

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?

Fascinating thread, but let me complicate (muddy?) things further by again going back to my silly/hypothetical/still-unanswered question above.

There's nothing ethically wrong with transferring ownership of anything you've legitimately purchased.

So if one does legally purchase music from iTunes (or wherever) and burns them onto a CDR, why does that not become physical property that can be legitimately transfered to another person? It's exactly like a used CD, with the artist getting the money initially (though by a different distribution system), and the first owner transfering it by sale, gift, etc.

The RIAA would, of course, consider this illegal and wrong - and I'd suspect most of us would too. It is, legally, an illegal copy, but if legitimately paid for it should be exactly like a used CD (though obviously of less value since it lacks paperwork, etc.).

[J Larsen]

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...

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?

Fascinating thread, but let me complicate (muddy?) things further by again going back to my silly/hypothetical/still-unanswered question above.

There's nothing ethically wrong with transferring ownership of anything you've legitimately purchased.

So if one does legally purchase music from iTunes (or wherever) and burns them onto a CDR, why does that not become physical property that can be legitimately transfered to another person? It's exactly like a used CD, with the artist getting the money initially (though by a different distribution system), and the first owner transfering it by sale, gift, etc.

The RIAA would, of course, consider this illegal and wrong - and I'd suspect most of us would too. It is, legally, an illegal copy, but if legitimately paid for it should be exactly like a used CD (though obviously of less value since it lacks paperwork, etc.).

It's not really the same as selling a "real" cd copy that you own if you're keeping the files from which you burned the disc. If you stipulated that you also destroyed the downloaded files, then you have a closer comparison.