if I rip my cds and then sell the entire collection to the used shop and use the money to buy more albums on mp3, does this hurt the artists?

(See, that one person affected a lamb.)

1) paid them when you bought the CDs in the first place
2) Obtaining money by selling the cds, then Giving the money to artists by buying the Mp3's.

2) Obtaining money by selling the cds, then Giving the money to artists by buying the Mp3's.
..But allowing other people to buy the CDs without money going to the artists.

thereby forcing artists (as if they operated in any collective sense, it's not the stock market) to produce new material to overcome fall off in back catalogue sales and earnings. (maybe this is what keeps Bob Dylan/Rolling Stones/etc managers flogging the dead horses on the touring circuit, they don't release new material that would result in similar earnings)

meaning.. More music! hip hip hora.

There's no concrete logic. you'd need a study done, with a sample of high consumption music listeners (or whatever the backbone of any particular market you wish to study is) numbering 1,000 or more of purchasing (cd/vinyl/mp3 etc) and secondhand selling etc.
there are a lot of variables to throw in as well, such as what is the resale rate on secondhand cds in any given market, whether consumers are also sharing as well as ripping. Whether the amount you could buy with earnings from second hand sales would give as much to the music industry as they would get from selling new copies of the music to the people who bought the secondhand copies. You've also got to factor in the Music industry's propensity for repackaging and reissuing as a means of combatting depressed back catalogue sales.

Morally..
the complexity of the market and industry deny you the information to make a concrete moral decision. Approach it agnostically, you cannot know.

too much coffee

new idea: regularly purchase songs (and then delete them) from your favourite artists via iTunes, Bleep etc, even if you already have them, because that way they keep getting money from you, which is nice.

The point Major Alfonso and Dave bring up is the one I was thinking about - basically by selling all your CDs to the used shop you're allowing other people to buy the albums without paying cash to the artists - but then wouldn't it be wrong to sell to the used shop all the time? There's nothing really unique here except the scale of the selloff and the intended purpose for the resulting cash. So does this just become an issue about the "ethics of selling to a used shop"?

So does this just become an issue about the "ethics of selling to a used shop"?

Sounds like it.

has anyone on here actually done this?

xpost - true, 666

and burn record fairs down too
you could be the first RIAA Terrorist
chase down file sharers

remember sharing = terrorism
fight them on their own terms
free the denied sales

Technically, that is considered illegal. You can make as many copies that you want as long as you a)don't sell them, and b)retain the original. If you sell the original, your "right to copy" goes with it.

Some think that this is to protect the artist/author, but really it is to prevent unwarranted use of the word simulacrum, which is, of course, a copy with no original (like Las Vegas). Nobody likes discussing simulacra--at least not without about four double espressos & pack of gauloise.

damn.

I have sent e-mails to two artists, randomly selected from my CD shelves (who aren't dead - I don't think Nick Drake would have much to say on the matter).

What do you musicians on this board think about the idea?

-- jackl

Paraphrasing the late Richard M. Nixon (breathing heavily into the mic): We could copy the CDs onto the hard drive, but it would be wrong

then is conditional (if...then) or time.

Second-hand is one thing--the difference here is that you're copying the music, then selling it. This effectively reduces the value of the commodity (the physical cd), since it artificially increases supply, assuming you wouldn't have sold it if you hadn't copied it. More used cd's on the market should equal fewer new ones sold.

But if your main concern is the artist, remember that in most cases the artist has already made all his/her/their money before the cd goes on sale. What you're harming is the label, and this can trickle down in various ways to the artists (less money for studio time/cocaine, smaller video budget, "edgy" neo-postpunk bands not getting signed), or maybe it won't, hard to say. If you're all torn up about it, probably better not to do it.

(sort of an off-topic question, sorry)

Considering how many people must be doing this, the industry focus on 'illegal down/uploaders' seems ever more daft.

I think the real question is how many people who buy albums at the used shop would have bought the album at the new shop if they hadn't found it used. Do you think there are many? I can't imagine so - if someone really wanted a specific album, wouldn't they buy it new? Used shop customers (including me) seem to be the type who flip through aimlessly, looking for something good.

The point is, if selling all my records is increasing USED sales without heavily affecting NEW sales, then no big deal. It's impossible to know this for sure, but it seems somewhat reasonable at this point. Am I wrong?

Used shop customers (including me) seem to be the type who flip through aimlessly, looking for something good.
And if the supply of used cds were much lower, it wouldn't be worth doing this. Assuming you have a desire for cds, and a certain amount of money to spend on this, it's reasonable to assume that in the absence of interesting used cds to buy you'd get more new stuff.

As for the last point, you have every right to sell your possessions. It won't have a great effect on new sales, just as was pointed out above--one vote doesn't have any effect, one person littering is no big deal, one person dumping their motor oil into the gutter isn't going to kill all the fish, etc.

OK, you're right, stupid example. I understand the supply/demand issues here; I was trying (and failing) to get at what would happen if everyone did what I'm thinking of doing. Obviously, if I'm the only one doing it, it won't matter either way - but as you mention, it's obvious there are a lot of horrible things you could justify because "one person doesn't make a difference". I don't want to do that.

So, sure, some of the used cds I'd be selling would have an effect on new sales, especially because some of them would be albums you don't typically see in a used shop. But I wonder if that loss would be balanced by the new money I'd be getting and spending on music - new music - online. Hm.

xpost - damn, eek, you're right. from now on my music purchasing will consist of buying master tapes and paying to physically stand in the studio while the music is being recorded.