I have absolutely zero problem downloading all this stuff. I’ve paid for it (sometimes more than I would have paid for a CD!), and if it readily exists in digital format, I’m going to download it. I’ve been able to find a lot of stuff this way, but there’s a lot of records that I just can’t find – I don’t have access to Waffles.fm, or any serious music tracker, and I don’t care enough to get an invite. I also am not going to (despite the fact that I can do it easily at work) rip all of those albums to digital. I’m resigned to ripping the more rare stuff, and probably a lot of 7″s, but the vast majority of it I’ll be getting from friends/the intarwebs.

I agree completely with you that it’s sad the way these record companies are bullying their customers. They just can’t overcome their history of greed. I remember reading in the 90′s that CDs cost the record companies just pennies and yet they would sell them for 15 to 21 dollars or so. And what percentage of it would go to the artist that wrote it? I love finding up and coming artists with large followings on the internet now selling their own recordings and making 7 dollars profit directly for every album they sell.

I agree that the record companies are only out to make lots of money. That said, the same is true for most businesses. The main difference is that the RIAA is using underhanded legal tactics to essentially bully their own customers in an effort to cling to an outdated business model. On top of that, they’re working to get Congress to pass laws protecting their business model and they’re trying to get internet service providers to filter network traffic to protect their copyrights. Trying to get so many people to protect your failing business model is just sad.

Unfortunately for them, I really don’t see the point of record labels anymore. Almost all of the things they offered before can be obtained relatively cheaply without them. Perhaps I’ll post more on this later.

While I appreciate your ethical nature I think you should decide what is and is not fair use and not let corporate america – who care nothing about ethics and only about making their share holders as much money as possible – dictate these things.

If you bought a song – no matter the format – the record company got paid, the artist got paid (not much but still) and the producers and the store where you bought it and everybody down the line got paid. You own that song now.

I think you should seriously consider downloading your entire non-digital catalog via P2P. Do some research and I think you will find that people who ONLY download never get sued.

This is an interesting issue, though. It brings up the philosophical question of what exactly you bought when you purchase music. Is it the medium or an unrestricted license to listen to the music? I think the RIAA would argue that it’s the medium. This is in line with their objection to the fair use provision that allows for people to make backup copies of CDs. They claim there is no need to make backup copies because, if your CD gets damaged, you can always re-buy it. In any case, I hope that this question is answered more unambiguously in the future.

Thanks for pointing out the stuff on used CDs. I figured it must be legal, since there are plenty of used CD stores, but I knew that the RIAA felt that it should not be legal.

As far as ripping and then selling, that seems obviously wrong, since you would be getting to have your cake and eat it too. I have hundreds of CDs that I keep around solely as essentially a proof of ownership for my digital files. What a pain.

I believe there have been court case that uphold the right to buy and sell used copyrighted works. It’s referred to as First Sale Doctrine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

(Now that I look at it, it looks like it was both a court case and a law that back that up.)

I’m pretty sure, though, that few people would argue that you have a right to rip music and then sell the CDs.

I’m no copyright person, though.