The was my thinking too, and I got rid of LPs a long time ago so I can concentrate on digital. But I still have a large collection of SACDs, and there is no uncomplicated way to rip those (ripped 2000+ CDs already). So, I am keeping MK2/PST for the time being.
I do not know if there is any readily available software for easy ripping on SACDs. Yes, I have used that old Sony BlueRay player ripping method, and I was able to rip a dozen discs then it stopped working. I even bought another Sony Blueray and a new computer, and it was still not working. Even if it works, I do not want to rip 400+ SACDs anyway, it will consume too much of my golf time.
I get what Elk is saying. You purchased a license from an artist for their work. You can rip it and listen from the ripped copy all you want, but once you sell the CD and retain your ripped copy you have effectively profited by giving a second license to the buyer of your CD without benefiting the artists that created the works.
Yes, that’s right. If you sell or give away the original media, you no longer hold the license that came with it. Keeping recorded copies isn’t legal, since the copyright gives you the right to use the media only while you own the original.
Also, once a CD is purchased new any subsequent sale does not benefit the artist. Although I’d be happy to chip in 20 cents per CD sale to the artist which is more than they get for streaming their whole catalog.
I understand the law and those who point it out are correct. However, saying that one is robbing the artist or music shops by selling a used CD after making a copy is a stretch. One could say that selling a used CD robs the artist of a new CD sale. That was probably true 10 years ago but many of our favorite CDs are OOP by now and even the majority of new artist are not releasing physical media at this point. So, a used CD sale with or without making a “backup” does break the law but it does not unequivocally rob the artist. Robbing the artist is what Record Labels and Spotify are for…
In Europe it is perfectly legal to sell CDs and continue to enjoy home copies:
You may sell a purchased CD and at the same time continue to enjoy the right to home copy, provided that you have legally obtained the CD and the home copy is for your own, private use. The sale of the CD falls under the so-called “exhaustion principle”, which means that after the first sale of the copy, the copyright on that specific copy is worked out and you can do with it what you want, such as reselling. The home copy scheme is a separate legal scheme that compensates you for making copies for private purposes and is separate from the resale of the original copy.
Right of exhaustion: If you bought a CD and purchased it for yourself, you may resell that copy or give it away to someone else. The copyright on the specific copy you purchased is then “exhaused”.
Continue to use home copies after selling, right to private copy: The home copy scheme allows you to make copies of copyrighted material, such as music from a CD, for your own use.
Compensation for creators: This scheme compensates artists and authors for the income they miss out on by making copies for private use, which is done via the home copy charge on, for example, empty storage media or devices.
The right to sell the CD and the right to make a home copy are two separate provisions within copyright law. One does not exclude the other; so you can sell a CD and at the same time still make a copy of it for private use.
I get all that and you are correct. My point is that the artist would gain or lose absolutely nothing by me or you selling a used CD - whether or not one might have ripped a copy of it. So, when offering reasons to not copy the CD and sell the original I think the only legit reason is the US legal issue. You had made an appeal for artists’ and music stores’ well-being as they would be losing out if one did that. They already made their money with the sale of the new CD and artists NEVER make any money on the sale of used. That’s my point.
Just to be clear - borrowing a CD from the public library, from a friend, from one of your kids, etc., then ripping it to your hard drive or SSD, and returning it, is illegal. The problem is that’s this law is practically unenforceable. Unless you are a DJ in a fancy New York club, and someone suspects you’ve got just too darn many tracks, you’ll never be prosecuted.
Getting back to the vinyl topic, my commitment to it remains steadfast as exemplified by purchasing and just installing a Dynavector XX2 MkII MC cartridge. Digital both CD and streaming has its place, but for serious listening vinyl is what consistently satisfies.
Exactly, IMHO Europe tackled this well. The private copying levy is a fee paid by manufacturers and importers of blank recording media and devices to compensate authors and composers for copies made at home. The levy is not a direct rate on each copy made but a tax on the equipment used for private copying, it aims to provide “fair compensation” to creators for the private use of their works. This system provides an essential income stream for authors and composers. For example, in 2019, private copying fees accounted for a significant portion of the royalties European creators received (FWIW).
After Elk’s statements, I feel bad about having given away many many CDs and LPs. He’s right.
But I soothe my conscience slightly by knowing that those gifts have sparked interest where none existed before and follow on purchases resulted.
That said, I know myself and I will most likely continue to give music that would otherwise sit in a box in the basement, away to humans who I care about. I love turning people on to music.
