var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
squinko
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Spray paint the discs gold before you send them if you're worried.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jimmy-James
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Of course, this is a copyright violation.

You sell them your CD/DVD, but they make a copy of them and give the content back to you.

You sold your license to the music when you sold them your physical disc. What makes you think you can sell your CDs for an iPod that contains them all?

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
korybing
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: So what happens when you have put your whole CD collection on your ipod and decide that you need to free up space in your apartment and sell all your CDs. Does that make all the music on your iPod magically illegal? This is something I should know more about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PipeRifle
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: Nowhere in the article does it say that they give you back an iPod with your music on it. It's just an iPod, presumably new in the packaging.

I'd confirm this on the iPodMeister site but it doesn't seem to be loading right now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: I am sure all you get is a brand new iPod.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrMan09
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: Color me confused, where did you get this idea?

They take your old media give you a credit towards a new ipod/hard drive. No where do I see them offering to prefill your new ipod with what you sent them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: As the others have said I think you misunderstand what is going on here. You seem to get a new iPod with no music on it not an iPod with all the music that you sent in on it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jimmy-James
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP:
@MrMan09:

I got the idea by actually looking at their site. They clearly offer digitizing where they will load the iPod with the cds you sent them.

They even have a whole page on their site about it:
[ipodmeister.com] Although it seems to be down now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrMan09
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: My bad I didn't look far enough into this. What I did find hitting up google and such was several people questioning the legality and one gentleman who actually called the RIAA and asked them. They referred him to their website, which did not answer the question. He asked them again and they suggested he talk to a lawyer. He did. The lawyer made some interesting observations about fair use, and pointed out that its not been fully defined. It seems they have been around for a while, and I would have expected the RIAA to be jumping up and down to squash them. If they were just ripping your music and returning your MP3's and CD's to you it would seem clear and legal. (yes we know the RIAA hates format shifting but its legal.) The preloading service then raises questions I don't think anyone has considered yet. Its like the RIAA spokesman who, when asked about DRM servers being taken offline denying people music they paid for, that they did not have to provide access to what you purchased forever. I guess it depends on your definition of purchase.

I think if anyone from the RIAA took the time to look this over, they would have a field day with it. The otherside of that coin is, they made their money from the original sale and don't care anymore. Or the court case would force the issue and it might not work out in their favor.

But it does seem very odd that this service seems to be chugging along just under the radar, even with people trying to draw attention to it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrMan09: The lawyer is correct that there *might* be fair use involved, and he's also right that it hasn't been fully defined. This is probably OK with the RIAA because the last thing they want is a court saying \"doing XYZ is perfectly within the bounds of fair use.\" The RIAA website hedges their statements about the law with a lot of \"probaly\"s and \"usually\"s. In the meantime, it's smarter for them to test the water cautiously and settle as many cases as they can without shoehorning themselves into definitive caselaw.

The RIAA spokesman is also correct about the DRM servers. Those types of servers are governed by the licensing agreements between the providers and the users. Copyright, in and of itself, doesn't really factor in to how those agreements are executed. The word \"purchase\" is defined by the agreements, not the RIAA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jimmy-James
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy:

Selling your CDs to someone, and keeping a copy of the music is not at all covered under fair use.

Selling your CDs to someone and having them send you a copy of them is even less fair use, and clearly a copyright violation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: I'm not arguing that it is or is not. I'm arguing that the boundaries of Fair Use have not been tested for these scenarios (which is true).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: Maybe I should explain myself further.

Selling CDs is OK per first sale doctrine.
Copying a CD for personal use? Not clear. Probably OK in most situations.
Selling CDs and keeping a copy? Not clear. Probably not OK b/c of the affect on commerce.
However, those who facilitate copyright infringements don't always get into trouble. This is very fact-specific and it's difficult to say how this would play out against the company.

With the tension between all of the facts and laws, I'm not exactly prepared to say one way or another. RIAA, as of right now, doesn't weigh in either (per my previous comment).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jimmy-James
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy:

Actually copying a CD for personal use IS clear. It has been established by precedent in Sony Vs. Universal City Studios (the betamax case)
[en.wikipedia.org]

Selling CDs and keeping a copy is also clear. How can it not be a violation of copyright? You are selling it, and keeping a copy. It is the same as making a copy and selling the copy. You are correct that the risk of prosecution is very low to nonexistent, but that doesn't mean it isn't a copyright violation. You won't get busted for making a copy of a CD and giving it to a friend, but that doesn't mean it isn't a violation of the copyright.

I avoid loaded words like stealing, pirate, illegal (it is a civil matter), etc. And I despise the RIAA. But lets not fool ourselves about what is going on with outfits like this.

BTW, current copyright law is unconstitutional (it clearly states in the constitution that copyright is for a \"limited time\", and it keeps getting extended indefinitely), and keeping our culture locked up for commercial entities.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: The Betamax case is about videotapes...not CDs. It's actually very narrow and doesn't apply to a lot of things outside of videotapes. For example, it wasn't applied to p2p scenarios. As far as I know, it's never been applied to CD ripping. As far as I'm concerned, it's wrong to assume that what's good for videotapes is good for CDs.

My point is that the scenario you present has never been demonstrated definitively in court. I'm not talking about risk of prosecution (I never said that, so I'm not sure where you're getting it). I'm not saying that you are probably right (actually, I'm almost positive that you would be right if actually taken to court). But my point, again, is that RIAA doesn't want to risk being wrong. As long as they pick and chose their battles, they won't get a Sony Betamax-type case on point for CDs that is not favorable for them.

>>>I avoid loaded words like stealing, pirate, illegal (it is a civil matter), etc. And I despise the RIAA.

Um, OK. I don't have any issue with any of that. I wonder why you would point that stuff out.

>>>BTW, current copyright law is unconstitutional

Yeah, I understand your argument thoroughly. The SCOTUS doesn't agree with you and they, after all, are the ones who actually said that it IS constitutional. You don't agree with it. I don't agree with it, either. I wonder why you put this in your argument. It's completely beside the point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
VickySmiles
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: Hi guys, My name is Dimetri and I have worked at iPodMeister during my time in the U.S. . I want to congratulate everybody to the earnest, debate about the legal aspects of the iPodMeister exchange of used CDs for a new iPod. Instead of taking one side I just want to provide some inside perspective from somebody who actually worked on the iPodMeister team.The digitizing is just a small part of iPodMeister. For a long time iPodMeister didn't offer digitizing. Most customers don't opt for digitizing. When I was working there most of the customers brought between 200 and 300 CDs and didn't want any file conversion. The only people that wanted their CDs digitized were usually classic- or jazz aficionados, often because they had out-of-print titles.
A little bit of background: iPodMeister is not a huge corporate entity but a small and always changing group of foreign college- and graduate students. The idea is to take old CDs that are collecting dust in the basements and attics and to make them accessible in other parts of the world where people are still listening to CDs because they don't have the money for an iPod (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Eastern Europe, to name a few).
The company never did any advertising when I was there. We got our customers through word of mouth and through occasional posts on the \"Burning Man\" mailing list or the blackboard of Food Co-ops. The guy from \"Newsweek\" heard about iPodMeister from his sister who had hooked up with us in New York before moving away. She wanted to clean house and get rid off her CDs. It was about house cleaning instead of copyright infringement.
When I was at iPodMeister, we worked out of a garage without windows or heat in the industrial section of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The garage was divided into three stages for three different rock bands and we also did some iPodMeister work part-time.
I don't want to take away from your principled, spirited legal discourse. One could easily argue that it doesn't matter who breaks the law if the law is actually broken - a large cooperation or a small group of students from poor countries. But I just want you to refocus: digitizing is a side-aspect of the iPodMeister exchange of used CDs for new iPods. The real story is a recycling story and the transport of used CDs that bring pennies in the United States to countries where people still listen to CDs.
When I was at iPodMeister we occasionally got people who wanted to \"trade\" or \"swap\" digital files. We always declined. We also delete all files that were digitized immediately after sending them to the customer. If somebody wants to get his hands on a digital version of a current Top-40 hit there are much easier ways to do that then to buy the album, then send it to iPodMeister as part of a collection, and waiting to get it back on DVD. Almost all of the CDs I digitized were five to fifteen years old, in dusty and cracked cases, and often from labels that had gone out of business or CDs that were out-of-print.
Again, my compliments to everybody for their well thought-through input and passionate participation in this discussion!


Dimetri

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: It occurs to me that my comment may have sounded a little too flippant. I should clarify, you're getting ahead of yourself by saying it's a violation of copyright. This is because it hasn't been tested and likely won't be tested in the near future. IANAL, but I know lawyers to be an interesting bunch. The best way to understand what I mean by the fact that lawyers and courts wouldn't necessarily go as far as you're going is based on this presentation made by Lawerence Lessig. I place special emphasis on the distinction he makes on how laypeople view the law as opposed to lawyers.

It's a bit long, but meh:

[www.boingboing.net]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChemicallyInert
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: Are you a lawyer? Cause people with law degrees tend to be much more hesitant to throw about words like \"clearly\" so casually- unless they've been retained.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ben
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: Actually, you apparently still get an unopened iPod. If you choose the digitizing option, they give you a DVD with your CD tracks ripped to it. Same concept though. I'm not sure how they think that's at all legal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YardanCabaret
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ben: Maybe it's working under the assumption that you've already ripped the disks at home so it's a back up for your (illegal) back up. Don't know but it certainly sounds fishy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ben
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YardanCabaret: Well, probably not, because they charge you extra CDs/DVDs for the service. It would be silly to \"pay\" extra if you've already ripped them yourself.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LostAtoll
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: That's a pretty good service if they also rip the CDs. Doesn't sound fishy to me, who cares if the big shots don't like it. FUCK THE RIAA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ben
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LostAtoll: \"It's OK to steal, as long as it's from a big corporation that I don't like.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jimmy-James: Do they give the content back to you? We've Slashdotted the website so I can't get in, but there's no indication of that above.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dunkelzahn
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw:


Agreed. What if there was a fire, and the only thing that you had was your digital backup? Isn't that the whole idea behind backing up your various CDs/DVDs?


Very faulty logic.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
remington870_20ga
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

there is a similar company that's been around longer. Its called milleniummusic.com

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Narockstar
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@remington870_20ga: I got an iPod through Millenium a few years ago. It wasn't as easy as they claimed. I was moving and did not want to take my old disks with me, so I boxed them up and sent them off. They took about half of them at \"half price\" and a quarter at \"full price\" and the other quarter they said were damaged. Still, it only cost me about $70 to get a new iPod, back when they were selling for like $350, I think.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

...and remember that if you've burned all your CDs/DVD to digital files, selling/trading/throwing away the original item means you no longer own that product, in any form...so it's illegal to retain your digital copies.


Just sayin'. Keep your disks.

Reply
14 replies
\"user-pic\"
rhys1882
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: It's illegal to burn your discs regardless of whether you keep the physical disk. The idea that you are allowed to burn a disc, even just for your own personal use, as long as you own the original is a fallacy promulgated by people who favor less restrictions on digital media distribution. They *WISH* that was the law. But it is not. That being said, I agree with the other responses that unless you are sharing that ripped media on a file-sharing service, or selling copies on the corner, you aren't going to get caught.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882:


That is incorrect. IANAL and I can't quote the exact Psalm for you, but I've read it enough times...


Basically you are allowed to make a copy for your own personal use. Period.


At the same time, while it is legal to make a copy for your own use, it became illegal to circumvent any DRM infections to do so. Which, obviously, are two laws that are diametrically opposed - hooray for lobbyists.


At the very least, you can burn .mp3s from your own legally purchased CDs completely legally, so long as you don't do so to a DRM-infected disk. The proper thing to do with a DRM-infected disk is to refuse to buy it in the first place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tubedogg
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882: I'm assuming by \"burn your discs\" you actually mean digitize or rip, as that's what YouDidWhatNow was talking about. That said, in either case, you are wrong. (Not to mention that this has nothing to do with \"people who favor less restrictions on digital media distribution.\" You ripping a CD has nothing to do with \"digital media distribution\" unless you are distributing it, which *does* fall afoul of copyright law.)

You may be familiar with a little case called Sony v Betamax, in which the Supreme Court of the US determined that time-shifting was legal. Additionally there was a 1999 case, RIAA v Diamond Multimedia, in which it was decided that format-shifting (such as ripping a CD to a computer) was also legal. Between these two decisions, and statements by RIAA counsel stating that ripping for personal use is OK (not that they write the laws, but given they are the ones who would come after you, if they go that far I'm willing to put stock in it), I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you are flat-out wrong.

As far as backup copies, in other words copying a CD you own onto a recordable CD, while there's no specific case law I can cite off the top of my head, it is historically considered fair use to make backup copies. Of course the DMCA prohibits you from circumventing technological restrictions (i.e. DRM) to do so, so DVDs and copy-protected CDs are out, but regular CDs, tapes, vinyl, etc. are all fair game (no pun intended).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tubedogg: Actually, I take issue with your explanation here. Your use of the Sony Betamax case and the Diamond Multimedia case is overly broad and not on-point.

First, the Sony Betamax case applies to VCRs and time shifting. No case has ever applied it to CD ripping. CD ripping, I would argue, is not the same as time shifting anyway (the RIO changes it to \"space shift\"). Moreover, several cases make it clear that the Sony Betamax case has not been extended to include things like P2P sharing. My point is that Sony Betamax by itself does not bless CD ripping.

Second, RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, as well, does not address format shifting such as ripping a CD to a computer. I understand that realistically, the usual way that a song gets to a player is via ripping a CD, but the Diamond court conspicuously does not address this aspect of use. It used the Sony case to address say that it's OK to space-shift those files that already reside on a user's hard drive, but it never addresses the legality of how those files might have gotten there (ie ripping). My point is that the Diamond Multimedia case does not AT ALL determine that ripping a CD to a computer is legal. It's really not even what that case is about. There is language there that might help with a subsequent case about ripping, but it's not developed right now.

To be sure, the Audio Home Recording Act attempted to legislate Fair Use into CD ripping, but the Act famously excluded safe harbor for home computers and hard drives. This is, however, how most people rip CDs now. My point is that there is no legislation and no case on point that specifically allows for CD ripping in any capacity. The big \"except\" is a Fair Use defense, if you can articulate one. In all likelihood, ripping for personal use is OK per Fair Use, but there aren't really any cases directly on point with this. That's the reason why there's no specific case law that you could cite off the top of your head to justify your statement.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP: I'm just going to point out tubedogg's post re: the legality of the issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tubedogg: I agree with you and I thank you for actually explaining what is going on. I hate when people are just like - it has to be legal and do not know what the underlying rationale is. Though making copies of work is usually within the exclusive rights of the copyright owner in a case such as this fair use applies and therefore it is allowed.

The only thing I will say is rhys would have a better argument if one was buying the CDs ripping them and then reselling them. It is one thing to \"space shift\" as Diamond Multimedia bring down - it is another thing to resell the music and still keep a copy of it for yourself which would seem to fall outside of what Diamond Media brought down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jaya9581
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882: I don't really care enough to look into your statements, but this argument came to mind: If it were truly illegal to copy your own, legally-owned CDs, why would software such as that for the iPod have this feature built right into it? I have never purchased a song on iTunes: Every song on my iPod comes straight from my own CD collection, each CD put in the drive, burned to the computer, and synced to my iPod. If what you're saying is true, that's illegal. The argument doesn't hold water.

Someone alert the RIAA so they will shut Apple down!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jaya9581: The answer is found in the Sony Betamax case (re: legality of non-infringing uses), the Diamond Rio case (the first case to talk about mp3 players), and a couple other places.

The bottom line is that Apple is safe, even if its customers violate copyright with their device.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jimmy-James
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882:

This is not true. You can rip your own discs to your own devices for your own use. As long as YOU do it.

What is a violation is getting a rip from someone else, even though you have the disc.

You can't download Elton John's Greatest Hits from bittorrent, even if you have the CD sitting on your shelf. But you CAN rip it yourself.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882: Don't you have that reversed? Doesn't RIAA wish that there was a law stating that you can't make digital copies of your legally-bought music? AFAIK there is no such law explicitly stating that you can't. If there is, I'd like to see it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: 17 USC Section 106 spells out the different rights a copyright owner has in their work. One of those rights is the right to make copies of said work. Just because you buy one copy of the work (a CD) does not mean you have the right to make a copy of that copy (the rip to your computer). Only the underlying copyright holder has such a right.

I don't think the issue is 100% black and white because you may have an argument that you have the right to make a back up copy - though that is a different discussion. The answer to your question of the law that prevents you from making copies of other people's works (even if you already own a copy) is 17 USC 106.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
srh
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882: That is an unconventional interpretation of the law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@srh: Why is rhys1882's interpretation so unconventional?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882: Well okay. Tough cookies to the RIAA. I'm burning my discs because when asswipes broke into my car, all they got were the copies of my CDs, and not the actual ones. Easy enough to make them again and I don't have to replace anything.

Hope they enjoyed the Sweeney Todd!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: Same here. The only CDs I have in my car (or HAD in my car, my poor dead car) are burned copies for the express reason of deterring theft. I want a potential thief to look in my crappy car, see my collection of crappy scratched up burned CDs, and decide that it is not worth breaking into the crappy car for the crappy CDs.

If that's illegal I guess I'm a criminal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: I highly doubt the RIAA is coming after someone who bought a cd, ripped the music then is getting rid of the cd. Just sayin'. They are more concerned about downloaders who buy nothing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dawnrazor
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: \"They are more concerned about downloaders who buy nothing.\"


Famous last words!


If the RIAA will go after (as others have pointed out) old ladies and little kids, AND shut down an entire town's wifi (due to one alledged case of file-stealing), I wouldn't put anything past them.


The best thing we can do is to simply avoid purchasing music (in any format) from RIAA-associated labels/artists. There is currently a plethora of excellent independent musicians in all genres who have \"something to say\" AND market their products without RIAA involvement. (I think there is a website somewhere that maintains a database of RIAA vs. non-RIAA artists.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
srh
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: Take your argument to the extreme, and you'll see how ludicrous it is.

Z creates a cd, and sells it to A. A rips it, and sells it to B. B rips it, and sells it to C. C rips it, and sells it to D. etc.

Z gets the proceeds for one sale, and everyone keeps the music. How are A, B, C, D, etc.. any different from \"downloaders who buy nothing\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@srh: You still realize that artists make nothing or next to nothing on cd sales, correct? They make all their money off of concerts and promotions. So the argument is still sound. The only ones really suffering are the record labels, the ones giving money to the RIAA to file lawsuits against people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cigsm
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: ABSOLUTELY FALSE! The label gives the artist an advance. That advance goes to paying for studio costs, producers, engineers, money to live off of while recording, even songwriters. They also have overhead in terms of A&R, administrative staff, etc. You've also got the graphic designers, marketing, & on & on & on. So when you think \"the only ones really suffering are the record labels\" think of all of the THOUSANDS of people laid off from Major Record labels in the last 5 years, almost directly due to piracy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: a dollar per CD on an album that sells 5 million copies makes them 5 million dollars...which isnt exaclty change.


So yes, low volume sales arent big money makers, but to say artists dont benefit from CD sales is stupid.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cigsm
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter:

@XTC46- thinksmarter on twitter:
if you think albums are selling 5 million copies these days you're sadly mistaken. The top selling album of 1999 was \"Millenium\" by Backstreet Boys which sold over 9.5 million copies in the US in 1999. The top selling album of 2009 (so far) is \"Fearless\" by Taylor Swift with 1.3 million copies in the US.

The #10 top selling album of 1999 was \"Wide Open Space\" by Dixie Chicks with over 5 million copies sold in the US. The #10 top selling album of 2009 is \"Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King\" by Dave Matthews Band with about 540,000 copies sold in the US.

& for math sake, we'll take that $1 per album you're talking about & we'll break it down.

Let's use Taylor Swift.

1 million copies sold X $1 royalty = $1 million

40% tax = $400,000. Now left with $600,000

Subtract the $100K advance from label. Left with $500K

Subtract 20% managers cut (from the $1mil). Left with $300K.

From those 1 million copies she's sold, she's left with $300K. & God Forbid you're a band. You have to (typically) split that between all the band members.

Of course, that's got to get you through your next album which would typically be 2 years away.

Just a little dose of reality for ya...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick:


Why wouldn't they? All they have to do is demonstrate that you don't have the original item in your possession.


That's considerably easier to do than to prove that it was *you* that downloaded that .mp3. Either you have the CD, or you don't. Black and white.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: They dont do it becasue they cant prove you have the digital copies. If you arent uploading or downloading the music, you are not doing damage to them, and they have little motivation to come after you. Then to come after you, they would need a warrant that allows them access to your computer, which they couldnt get with a simple \"but so and so said they saw them\". THEN once they did get access to the computer, it would be on THEM to prove you stole the music, you dont have to prove you are innocent, they have to prove you are guilty.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?:


What would happen if someone stole the CD's from my car? Does that mean I can't legally listen to songs that I ripped from them?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YouDidWhatNow?
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw:


I'd bet that the RIAA would make that arguement.


I think that's a tricky one. If you could provide proof that you purchased a given CD, say \"Hanson's Greatest Hits,\" and then provide a police report outlining how it was stolen, you might be able to emerge relatively unscathed from court with the RIAA comes-a-suing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YouDidWhatNow?: Good luck proving that. And how would they catch you unless you were either A) Dumb enough to admit it to the RIAA or B) You really pissed someone off and they wanted revenge on you.


I mean be real. They go after downloaders because they can get the most proof from the ISP that the downloaders use. If you have the files ripped off a cd that you used to own, unless you give them total access to your computer, they got nothing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
boobookitt
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Although if you import your CD into Itunes software it does document that electronically. I also have turned vinyl into mp3's and got rid of the vinyl. I'm willing to risk the lawsuit to avoid moving 80 lbs of vinyl to another apartment.@YouDidWhatNow?:

Reply
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@boobookitt: Here's a question, bouncing off this comment: are you expected to destroy digital copies if the material copy was stolen? The reason I ask is that CDs have been stolen from my car before during a break-in, and when our home was robbed last year they stole a few of our CDs and my entire record crate (bastards). I have police reports from both incidents documenting that the material copies are as good as gone, but I did have digital copies. Am I expected to get rid of those too? Because if so, that blows.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes: i didn't. our car gets rifled through (on site security my arse. no, car alarm doesn't help as i'm not allowed to shoot the sobs if i catch'm) often enough that only dups are kept in it. not about to risk any more of my masters.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: Really? I would fully expect the RIAA to sue everyone they found doing this, including old ladies, children under the age of 9, and dogs and cats.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Interesting. I probably have between 150-250 CDs in varying conditions, but at least a third of them are promos from working in the record store. Plus I already have a deified iPeener. Not much I could do with another one.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy_IsBeing(pur)SuedByAMonster:

I've never had this many cds/dvds from personal use, but I used to work for a community radio station that always had boxes and boxes of crappy promo and radio only cds. Already suggested that they participate in this to get ipods for station giveaways.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SkuldChan: Yes I know. I was inferring that because of that, and the fact that I have an iPod, it would not be to my advantage to participate in this program. Although Wombatish is right, and I could just sell it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RecordStoreToughGuy_IsBeing(pur)SuedByAMonster: Sell it.

I fully plan on starting a box of the CDs/DVDs we would normally donate to the library (we've moved and our new library doesn't take them) and if it ever gets even close to 200 or w/e sending it in.

Yeah, I could -maybe- get a dollar a DVD at a pawnshop or craigslist, but I could also definitely get $300 or w/e for an iPod.

Plus, SO might randomly decide he wants one. Win-win.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
savvy999
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wombatish: you have to weigh the benefits in this scenario-- I write off roughly $8 per CD that I donate to the library; in your bracket, is getting an $8 deduction worth more or less than $1 in cash (or the instantly-devalued ipod equivalent)?

wish I had an online calculator to show you the math, but personally, I'd rather take the charitable deduction.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savvy999: I don't itemize, and neither does the SO.

We're better off that way, just donate to charity to get rid of something we don't want and that is nice enough to not just be recycled still. And I just <3 Libraries :D

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seems quite intesting if you have a ton of cds or dvds that you want to get rid of that you already ripped all the music off of.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
jik
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: ... which would, of course, be illegal.

If you give up the discs, you are legally required to destroy any digital copies you made of them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jik: And how many people do you know that do that? No one would be the answer to that. With so many ways to aquire music without DRM, they wouldn't know where you got it or aquired it. Unless you admitted to the RIAA that you did it or gave them full access to your hard drive, they would have no clue. Its not like people haven't been doing this for YEARS already.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
srh
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: That is a poor justification and a worrisome attitude.

You are proposing stealing something, merely because you can get away with it.

Yes, dishonest people have been doing it for years. Many other people, however, believe in compensating artists and record companies for their time, and obtain music legally.

Golden rule, and all that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@srh: You do know most artists make little to nothing on cd sales and almost all their money on promotions and concerts, right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: You do know that Burger King's dollar whoppers are a loss leader so you can steal all of them you want too?

Just saying... while I agree the RIAA is over-powered and that we have some interesting DRM/Copyright laws in this country, that argument is not a very good one.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cigsm
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wombatish:

Yes it is. CD's are not a loss leader to the labels, artists or staff. Especially for the labels, it is their life blood. What about the songwriters, who often times, get NO money upfront and rely SOLELY on royalties. Guess what? Every song you steal is LITERALLY money coming out of their pocket, food coming off of their table, a roof going off from over their heads.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wombatish: Who eats at burger king?


Do what you want with your music. I bought music years ago and ripped what I wanted and sold my cds. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. I have not shared the ripped music with anyone and someone got to enjoy the cd I sold at a fraction of the inflated price I bought it at originally.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ben
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: How is selling your CD, while keeping a copy of the music for yourself, not sharing it? If you thought the price of the CD was too high, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ben: I paid for the cd, and took the songs I wanted. The record labels got their money out of me. Whether I own the cd or not shouldn't matter, I aquired the music by legal means.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cigsm
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick:

I love that argument lol. Yes you did acquire the music by legal means & then you sold it along with your rights to it. You no longer have the right to listen to that copy. If you want to continue to listen to it, don't sell the CD. When you sell a car, you give the car to the person who bought it. You SOLD you're rights to listen to that copy of the music.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Illusio26
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: I'm with you. I think it's a BS law anyway. If I buy something, I should be able to do what I want with it. Somehow how I doubt everyone on this site follows every law, especially ones they don't agree with.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@srh: But what if something happened to my CDs, like God forbid, a fire, and I grabbed my computer at the last minute and still had all my digital copies? Am I then supposed to destroy all the digital files of the CDs which are now a lump of melted plastic, and have no music at all?

I don't think I'm gonna do that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
FatLynn
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just knew someone would want my high school-era collection of show tunes!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
gertymac
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@FatLynn: You'll have to pry mine out of my cold dead hands! :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not sure how that's generous for CDs - they aren't buying blank CDs, they're looking for albums. If my collection (such as it is) is any metric, I would have to guess that with 250 CDs you spent far more than the $200.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
tonberryqueen
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: Speaking as a former record store clerk who bought back literally thousands of CDs and DVDs in my job...most items, unless they are either fairly new, popular, or rare, won't get you all that much money. A lot of CDs do trade for about $1-$4. DVDs do typically get a little bit more, however.

Another thing to note is that stores simply won't BUY a lot of things. Either there are tons and tons of used copies already around (like, say, a copy of Jagged Little Pill), or it's something that simply doesn't sell, or it's in crap condition. Most stores also won't buy something without artwork, which iPodmeister apparently will.

I sometimes had somebody come in with a bag full of CDs, expecting some giant payout of a few hundred bucks from their largely circa 1998 CDs, and then I proceeded to not buy more than half of what they had and handed out maybe $50. Local stores have to be able to sell what they've bought, whereas iPodmeister is doing a lot of bulk and international business.

Bottom line: if you have a lot of CDs that are either evergreen titles (AC/DC, Zeppelin) or recent releases, all in stellar condition, then, yeah, this service would be a rip-off for you over trading them in to a store. If that's not that case, it's probably a better use of your time, and you're more likely to unload stuff that stores simply won't buy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: Yea you most likely did, but if you wanted to get rid of your cds how much would you make. Even if you sold them on Amazon there are fees and what not, so you may not end up with too much in the end. This is a good service for someone who doesn't want to spend a lot of time, but still wants to get rid of a lot of old cds.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AwesomeJerkface
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick:

Exactly. I've been trying to sell my CDs and it's a big pain!

I used to sell CDs here and there on eBay, and it's ridiculous how much work it is for $2-3. Sure if I did it for all my 200 CDs, it'd be $400, but that would be over maybe 1 year? How much time would I have wasted?

I could sell it to a store, but between gas or public transit, I'm spending more money gambling on what they'll take.

I tried listing it in a bulk on Craigslist and Facebook, but people only want 1 or 2 and I'm too lazy to double check what they want.

This is awesome.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AwesomeJerkface: If your CDs are in pristine condition and are by relatively well-known artists, I think FYE is relatively fair.

They're total Nazis about condition, they won't take anything remotely indie and the awkward guy at the desk who probably listens to metal will make fun of your music collection, but for me it was a cheap and easy way to get rid of stuff. I'd say I got between $3-10 per disc for discs that had come out in the last 5 years, were by well-known artists, and were in rarely played condition.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CowboyRob
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This sounds too good to be true. Assuming this is on the up-and-up, now how can I get rid of my vinyl, cassettes, and (yes, a few) 8-tracks?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
lmarconi
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CowboyRob: Craigslist your vinyl and maybe even your 8 tracks. I collect vinyl and I frequently buy on Craigslist. You'll find a buyer if you have popular pop/rock stuff from the 60s-80s.
Cassettes you're maybe shit out of luck.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
iambeaker
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And the site is now down...

Reply
1 replies
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Outrun1986
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me, around here you can buy CD's at a yard sale for 3 for a dollar, and they don't move very well either. These are full albums too. I have seen way too many people selling their CD's for this price or less. Most pawn shops will give you probably less than 25 cents per CD or they just don't want them because they are overloaded.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dreamking
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't confirm this because the site's been slashdotted, but it sounds to me there are two discrete services going on. The digitizing of your content onto music devices as a service, and then the separate deal of trading in CDs/DVDs for an ipod.

I could be wrong, but the google cache link doesn't suggest differently.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bsteimel
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I haven't listed to an actual printed CD in like 5 years. I'm pretty sure i have a couple cd books lying around.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

you could also try spun.com. they actually buy CDs and DVDs, and you can use that to buy new stuff you want. or don't and keep your pile of useless garbage.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
edrebber
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You're allowed to make copies of CDs as long as you don't distribute the copy over the internet or give them to your friends.


[www.riaa.com]

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@edrebber: Did you actually read that cite? It doesn't say what you think it says.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

so, cash4gold4CDs?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
KyleOrton
November 18, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gStein_has joined the star bandwagon: I thought this site gave iPods for CDs. Is there another one that will give you fully-formed businesses with poor reputations for CDs? How many CDs?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
boogermike
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nobody replied that they have successfully used this service, which is what the original post asked.

I am interested in this service (I have a closetful of used CDs, and just want to get rid of them). If this service is in fact on the up and up, I am very interested.

Please post if this is something you have successfully used, and if your experience was good.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
WaldoJeffers
November 24, 2009 9:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dropped off my CDs at their warehouse yesterday, but couldn't stick around while they went through. With any luck, I'll hear back from them in the next day or two, and will have my iPod before Christmas.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EwanG
November 24, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Please do come back and update. I have a couple of boxes of CDs and DvDs I'd been wondering what to do with, and this SOUNDS like a great solution. But I'd like to make sure it actually works out and doesn't take six months for turnaround :-)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BrandonW
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@boogermike:

I got my email with the packing slips yesterday and I'm sending out the boxes today. Hopefully I'll be updating this with a happy ending in a couple of weeks.

Reply
","","","","","","");