Selling my album collection

[dorian gray]

Saving music on a hard drive and then selling the source material is extremely inappropriate...especially if you're a supporter of the arts.

 

[SonOfNun]

The reason I have the albums on my computer in the first place is that I added each CD as I bought them over the years so I could listen to them while online and listen to the hard copy elsewhere. I've been listening to them that way for years, so I didn't just rip them all onto my computer to have them now that I'm selling them. Either way it's irrelevant to this case because I'm done with this style of music and the albums are being phased out and deleted anyway.

It's an interesting point to pursue for the sake of argument however. Are you contending that it's inappropriate to sell your used CDs in general because it deprives the artist of a new sale? Or is it somehow only inappropriate to keep mp3s of the albums? I fail to see how it matters whether or not one keeps the music (after purchasing it, thus giving the artist what they expect) in another form if we are speaking in terms of "supporting the artist." If a person sells a used CD, presumably they are taking away a new sale of that CD from the artist and this would be where you take issue? Where does keeping the mp3s translate into any effect upon the artist? Also, how does this differ from independent record stores, or a Hastings, etc. selling used albums? The person who gets rid of the CD is compensated, the store is compensated, the artist is deprived of a new sale. All of the above is of course dependent on whether or not it is even any of an artist's business what a person does with their album after they've paid for it. Also, what about burning and swapping CD-Rs, downloading music online for free (surely you should have a greater problem with that), and other things that many people at UM do?

Any question of the integrity of art should really begin with a discussion of how "noble" it is to sell one's art in the first place. One could contend that it degrades the very nature of art to expect and receive compensation for it or expect to earn one's living from it. If art is really something higher, then why drag it down to the level of a job, or something that can be bartered and sold AT ALL? What is it about our society that makes us think we can put a price on anything we want or that people "deserve" money for entertaining us, or in a number of other similar fields? Maybe it doesn't impact an unpopular genre such as metal that severely but our obsession with quantifying the value of art has led to an entertainment industry that trivializes true art and siphons away our attention and finances from helping those in need or paying those who's practical effect on the world is more necessary and positive. If "supporting the arts" is equal to paying artists for a product, that's a pretty shallow defintion. If people want to donate to an artist to cover the costs of producing their art wouldn't that be more acceptable than making it a product and a way to profit?

Most of these questions are going to be inherently confusing anyway until everyone is working with a similar opinion of the importance of the physical medium in conveying an abstract item or until everything goes digital.

PS: if you knew me you would've known this would open a can o' worms. Sorry bout that.

 

[Reign in Acai]

Purchasing records has little to do with supporting the artists monetarily as few artists of this style earn a living from it. It's more about dignifying the art by listening to the music the way in which it was intended. Anybody who attempts to rationalize the opposite is a Jew.


BTW - Did you receive my money order?!

 

[dorian gray]

Oh, ok. I think I'll start putting in some extra hours off the clock then, too.

 

[dorian gray]

Any question of the integrity of art should really begin with a discussion of how "noble" it is to sell one's art in the first place. One could contend that it degrades the very nature of art to expect and receive compensation for it or expect to earn one's living from it. If art is really something higher, then why drag it down to the level of a job, or something that can be bartered and sold AT ALL?

I broached this topic in another thread and the general concensus was:

HEY DORIAN FUCK YOU GO LISTEN TO OPETH

That said, I think the idea of burning, downloading, or saving of any kind in any format except in the case of ease-of-use (playing an mp3 of an album you don't want to carry around in your car) is inappropriate.

 

[skeptik]

With regards to the "degradation" of selling your artwork; see: Nöel Carrol, namely A Philosophy of Mass Art.

With regards to music "owning"; I don't think it's appropriate to listen to mp3s of CDs that you no longer own in the sense that your purchasing of the CD is what gives you the "right", so to speak, to listen to said artwork, and by selling it, you're forfeiting that right. At least that's how the theory goes.

 

[dorian gray]

ITT Dodens posts dorian's thoughts

 

[Reign in Acai]

ITT he also posts RIA's thoughts, which happen to be dorian's thoughts. We our a collective body, our heart beats as one.*



























*And that beat can be ripped directly to your Ipod Nano.

 

[J.]

i got good music for cheap here

 

[dorian gray]

*And that beat can be ripped directly to your Ipod Nano.

 

[dorian gray]

i got good music for cheap here

Anything cheap sucks...like my computer

 

[einride]

With regards to music "owning"; I don't think it's appropriate to listen to mp3s of CDs that you no longer own in the sense that your purchasing of the CD is what gives you the "right", so to speak, to listen to said artwork, and by selling it, you're forfeiting that right. At least that's how the theory goes.

get over yourself and your marketingspeak it's just a plastic disc and i don't think anyone with at least one foot left in reality honestly thinks they need a corporation to tell them that you they the "right" to make certain soundwaves enter their ear canal

copyright finns inte

 

[SonOfNun]

With regards to music "owning"; I don't think it's appropriate to listen to mp3s of CDs that you no longer own in the sense that your purchasing of the CD is what gives you the "right", so to speak, to listen to said artwork, and by selling it, you're forfeiting that right. At least that's how the theory goes.

Are you actually purchasing the CD or the "right" to listen to said artwork. Once you pay the artist for their music, why shouldn't you have the right to listen to it in ANY medium regardless of what becomes of those mediums? As mediums change from vinyl to tape to cd to our time where physical mediums begin to disappear, shouldn't we be discussing the purchase of an "album" as the purchase of rights to listen to certain music in whatever way one chooses for as long as one chooses? I'm not sure that right can be truly forfeited regardless of what happens to the mediums. Let's turn this on its head: If a person buys the music in digital form, then burns it to a disc, and sells/deletes the mp3s, what has changed? If someone breaks a CD on accident is their right to listen to that music forfeited? The medium seems relatively meaningless.

To RiA's comment: "It's more about dignifying the art by listening to the music the way in which it was intended." When artists begin to fully transition to digital will you purchase their mp3s as they intend and go all digital or lament the transition from CDs and continue to cling to them as many do with their vinyl records now? I don't think artists intend for someone to listen to their music on a certain medium as the only valid way to experience it, or their art becomes extremely limited and time-bound. [/jew]

This is why I said "Most of these questions are going to be inherently confusing anyway until everyone is working with a similar opinion of the importance of the physical medium in conveying an abstract item or until everything goes digital."
"

 

[NAD]

The only album I burned to computer and later sold was some Negura Bunget stuff because Negru ripped me off.

You can't download a t-shirt, and you don't make friends with salad.

 

[KILL TULLY]

 

[MFJ]

Okay, THAT is awesome.

Let me say something. This guy here is trying to sell his CDs, and you guys are buying them. Don't start some retarded internet debate because somebody you will never meet or talk to is tired of this type of music and is getting rid of his hard copies. Why should someone feel guilty about keeping their electronic data because they sold the plastic disc version that it came from?

Damn, everyone.... damn.

 

[J.]

exactly. thanks for the music Josh. I intend to buy more. just let me know when i can send the funds, so you dont get hit with fees.

FYI: i still have zero mp3's. only cds and a few vinyls. no ipod either

 

[skeptik]

Are you actually purchasing the CD or the "right" to listen to said artwork.

I think it's pretty obvious that you're doing both and that they are one in the same. If you own the CD legally, you have the "right" to listen to it. If you sell the CD, you are selling the right.

Once you pay the artist for their music, why shouldn't you have the right to listen to it in ANY medium regardless of what becomes of those mediums?

Because you're giving up the right by giving up the CD. You no longer own the artwork, and ownership is what designates the right (obvious exceptions excluded, such as artists who give their music away for free download, but even in that case it can be said that the artist is willfully bestowing the right to all potential listeners).

As mediums change from vinyl to tape to cd to our time where physical mediums begin to disappear, shouldn't we be discussing the purchase of an "album" as the purchase of rights to listen to certain music in whatever way one chooses for as long as one chooses?

Yes, but there's a difference between legal and illegal, legitimate and illegitimate mediums. If you legally rip a CD, and then you sell the CD, the rip is illegal because what constitutes the legality of the rip is your ownership of the CD.

I'm not sure that right can be truly forfeited regardless of what happens to the mediums. Let's turn this on its head: If a person buys the music in digital form, then burns it to a disc, and sells/deletes the mp3s, what has changed?

I don't think you can sell mp3s, can you? But in that case, if you purchased mp3s, and then burned it onto a CD and proceeded to sell the rights to the mp3s, then you basically have done the equivalent of downloading it illegally and burning it onto a CD. What has changed is your status to the rights of ownership.

If someone breaks a CD on accident is their right to listen to that music forfeited?

I like this example because it seems applicable, but isn't. If you buy a CD and rip it, and then the CD breaks, the mp3s are of course still legitimate. You still own the CD, do you not? Unless you sell the broken CD somehow, you still have the rights of ownership, even if you throw it away.

The medium seems relatively meaningless.

The medium is entirely meaningless. The status of ownership and rights is an entirely different matter.

When artists begin to fully transition to digital will you purchase their mp3s as they intend and go all digital or lament the transition from CDs and continue to cling to them as many do with their vinyl records now? I don't think artists intend for someone to listen to their music on a certain medium as the only valid way to experience it, or their art becomes extremely limited and time-bound.

I would both lament the transition and buy the mp3s if that is the only format that is available. As for the artists' intentions regarding medium, I think it's pretty obvious that in some cases artists have perfectly defined intentions of how they want their music to be listened to, but I think that is largely irrelevant anyway.

This is why I said "Most of these questions are going to be inherently confusing anyway until everyone is working with a similar opinion of the importance of the physical medium in conveying an abstract item or until everything goes digital."

I'm confused by this statement. This is not at all an issue of medium, but of rights of ownership. You can possess the rights of ownership equally across the spectrum of media, so the medium per se is irrelevant. Medium is a separate discussion, unless you were having two discussions in one and I didn't notice? That said, I think there is something to be said for the integrity of physical, tangible formats of music, but again, it's more an individual concern. Not everybody values art and everything is entails in the same way. Not everybody even listens to music as art. I personally greatly prefer to own a physical, tangible object, but I wouldn't have a choice if everything suddenly went entirely digital.

Let me say something. This guy here is trying to sell his CDs, and you guys are buying them. Don't start some retarded internet debate because somebody you will never meet or talk to is tired of this type of music and is getting rid of his hard copies. Why should someone feel guilty about keeping their electronic data because they sold the plastic disc version that it came from?

Well, number one, I think that this is an interesting discussion, and obviously Opeth17 does as well. I don't really care if he keeps the mp3s, whether or not I agree with it (see above for why someone should "feel guilty about keeping their electronic data because they sold the plastic disc version that it came from", though I wouldn't say it that way). This has nothing to do with Opeth17 himself, but rather the topic that was raised in general. As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any personal attacks, nor should there be, this is just an open discussion.

 

[SonOfNun]

I'm confused by this statement. This is not at all an issue of medium, but of rights of ownership. You can possess the rights of ownership equally across the spectrum of media, so the medium per se is irrelevant. Medium is a separate discussion, unless you were having two discussions in one and I didn't notice?

If you own the CD legally, you have the "right" to listen to it. If you sell the CD, you are selling the right.

I think we are simply on different wavelengths because of the different methods we are using to approach the question. From a legal standpoint, as concerns the laws of this nation, you would be correct. When I speak about "rights to listen", I am not talking about legal rights. I am trying to examine the moral and personal legitimacy aspects of this. From my point of view, this discussion is necessarily confusing for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I see the medium, rights, and their relationship completely differently and want to examine how they become intertwined. I suppose I'm attempting to completely dissociate the material component from the abstract component when it comes to "rights to listen" and what is actually being purchased. My overall point being to examine the idea that when one purchases an album, the medium through which they purchase it is completely irrevelant (for different reasons than you mentioned), that what they are really purchasing is an inviolable right to experience that art without end, and that it is impossible to sell or forfeit that right by selling the medium. Of course from a legal standpoint that wouldn't fly, but it's worth philosophical examination and ties to my other point. (below)

artists who give their music away for free download, but even in that case it can be said that the artist is willfully bestowing the right to all potential listeners).

I think this raises the most critical point of all, and ties back into the idea of the integrity of selling one's art. Is not the creation of art the willful bestowing of the right to all potential listeners/viewers? In the society we live in, the physical and abstract become intertwined, I think I'm just attempting to pull them apart. I want to discuss the rights to experience art, which in this society means purchasing rights. The question then being: When one purchases an album, what are they really purchasing? My contention is that it is only the right to experience that art without end, and that such a right cannot be sold or violated. Even then, it seems appropriate to me that eliminating the purchase as a qualifier for who does or does not have such a right seems just. I think I am growing uncomfortable with the idea of "owning" art or "owning" rights to art (when such rights should be inherent and available to all) and thus why I find the material component irrelevant, think it makes a poor symbol for who has such rights, and disagree with the contention that it is its purchase or sale that bestows or takes away such rights. Though, you aren't really doing this, I don't, however, want to end up discussing the right to "own" music as we would the right to own clothing, cups, or cars. We might as well discuss "owning" land while we're at it. I guess the upshoot of all of this is that I look forward to that "dreaded" day when music goes all digital, becomes completely free of charge, is made reliably available to all and we support artists by donating to their production efforts instead of buying their product.

Well, number one, I think that this is an interesting discussion, and obviously Opeth17 does as well. I don't really care if he keeps the mp3s, whether or not I agree with it (see above for why someone should "feel guilty about keeping their electronic data because they sold the plastic disc version that it came from", though I wouldn't say it that way). This has nothing to do with Opeth17 himself, but rather the topic that was raised in general. As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any personal attacks, nor should there be, this is just an open discussion.

I don't mind the discussion (though I think we'll ultimately achieve nothing but a legacy of rambling), or I wouldn't have responded to dorian to begin it. As I've said previously, I never had any intention of keeping the mp3s in the first place. What motivated this entire sale is my complete disinterest in listening to metal. If I had any interest in this music, I would keep the CDs. Either way, I took the time to finish clearing my hard drive of all of my metal music (this discussion was a good prompt to remind me to finish doing that), and so there is really no personal component to this discussion.

 

[skeptik]

There's a lot to be said and to be addressed about what you said, but I don't think I have the energy to do so. I assumed that this was the direction that you were heading, which is why I suggested Nöel Carroll's A Philosophy of Mass Art, which touches on a lot of what you said. To begin with, there needs to be made a distinction, foremost, between autographic and allographic arts. Autographic arts are those for which there is merely one instance of it, such as a performance of a play or orchestra. Allographic arts are those arts which are referred to as mass arts, in which there is involved inherently a consumerist mechanism of mass production. This, obviously, includes CDs, LPs, tapes, etc. The second distinction that needs to be made is the difference between the type and the token. Since we're dealing with allographic arts here, the distinction in autographic arts does not need to be addressed. For allographic arts, the type would be the performance that ultimately winds up on the CD, and the token, obviously, would be the CD itself. I'm not going to delve into the ideal of artistic integrity that you've set up because I not only partially disagree (for instance, the implication that the possibility of an artwork being purchasing somehow indication a devaluing of the work as art, or the questioning of the integrity of an artist who wishes to profit from his art, neither of which are by any means necessarily true), but also because it simply is not the reality of not only our culture, but of the way that art has come to evolve. The reality of art, mass art anyway, is that there is necessarily a mechanism of mass production and is therefore within the realm of discussing the "owning" of the rights of the work. I also don't think that we'll ever see the day that music becomes institutionally digitized and distributed free of charge, but that's neither here nor there.

I've tried to lay out some of the key points that I would like to elaborate on eventually, but I would like you to elaborate upon what you mean when you say that, while you can purchase the right to listen to a piece of music, for example, you cannot ever relinquish that right. It seems to me intuitively obvious that if the right in itself is not inherent but that it can be gained, that it would, in this instance, necessarily also be subject to loss.