Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
From: "Julian" <germ@iinet.net.au> To: "john schuller" <superbadassmofo@hotmail.com>,<zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc. Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 12:25:52 +1100
Then there is the subject of used cd's. I told him that when he bought a used cd he may as well have made an unauthorized copy...becuase the artist does not see any of the money past the initial sale of that cd. Or that when he sells used cd's to stores he may as well be selling audience tapes because he is now making money off of someone else's music.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I can't see how that theory works. When you sell a cd you don't want, you rarely make money, but rather lose money - say you spend $20, then perhaps get back $10, you have paid out $10 for a cd which you don't even own anymore!
Yes, you do lose money on your initial purchase. But the item you are selling is only generating any money because of the artist created material on it. Now the artist very well may have sold two copies new for versus just one copy with two seperate owners at different times. Just a thought and you make a great point.
Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got whatever money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one payoff to the artist?
Again great point. But you have to look at the fact that the artist may have sold two copies of that cd new - versus one. Of course I do not claim to have any answers that make any sense. I am just curious about all sides and all angles to this topic. John Schuller _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
on 11/29/02 9:13 PM, john schuller at superbadassmofo@hotmail.com wrote:
Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got whatever money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one payoff to the artist?
Again great point. But you have to look at the fact that the artist may have sold two copies of that cd new - versus one.
Not always or even generally the case. How often does the average guy buy a used copy of something about which he is curious, because the nine dollar pricetage makes it more feasible than speculative purchases at roughly eighteen bucks a copy? skip h
skip wrote to zorn-list: sH> How often does the average guy buy a used copy of something about sH> which he is curious, because the nine dollar pricetage makes it more sH> feasible than speculative purchases at roughly eighteen bucks a sH> copy? Precisely ... there are records that I'll buy for five that I wouldn't buy for nine, too, because all I'm really buying based on is a hunch -- but I may well buy (I have, actually, bought) that artist's *next* release for full price, direct from the artist. Did the artist win or lose? -- Jim Flannery newgrange@talmanassociates.com When you can't give anything, you can also receive nothing. Through giving, you also receive. You can never stop giving. When you have nothing more to give, you're dead. -- Mustafa Tettey Addy np: Amira Saqati, _Agdal Reptiles on Majoun_ nr: Wyndham Lewis, _Hitler_
on 11/29/02 11:07 PM, Jim Flannery at newgrange@talmanassociates.com wrote:
Precisely ... there are records that I'll buy for five that I wouldn't buy for nine, too, because all I'm really buying based on is a hunch -- but I may well buy (I have, actually, bought) that artist's *next* release for full price, direct from the artist. Did the artist win or lose?
Exactly. I mean, there's no way I can afford all them Masada albums otherwise.
on 11/29/02 9:13 PM, john schuller at superbadassmofo@hotmail.com wrote:
Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got
whatever
money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one payoff to the artist?
Again great point. But you have to look at the fact that the artist may have sold two copies of that cd new - versus one.
But such reasoning goes agianst buying second hand in general, not just copyrighted material. So it seems to hardly make any sense. Artidt canot be that much protected. Marcin
participants (4)
-
Jim Flannery -
john schuller -
Marcin Gokieli -
skip Heller