Swapping CD-Rs - Please Read

[xricci]

The "Offering and Looking for" forum was created to provide AAJBB members with a convenient outlet for swapping or selling used or unwanted CDs or vinyl. It must not be used as a forum to facilitate the exchange of CD-Rs or other pirated material that clearly violates copyright considerations.

All About Jazz reserves the right to remove any material that violates this policy.

[JSngry]

Duly noted.

[Bill Fenohr]

Does this prohibition include old vinyl albums that have not been on, and in a number of cases probably will never be on cd? At least on those the record companies are getting some money on the royalty we are charged on the blanks, unlike the ebay sellers and used stores who keep all the cash.

Just a thought

[Tjazz]

Originally posted by Bill Fenohr
At least on those the record companies are getting some money on the royalty we are charged on the blanks, unlike the ebay sellers and used stores who keep all the cash.


Bill,
Supposedly, ebay sellers and used stores are not selling cd-rs.

They are selling original LPs/CDs.

[J Larsen]

Originally posted by Tjazz

Bill,
Supposedly, ebay sellers and used stores are not selling cd-rs.

They are selling original LPs/CDs.

Um, I think you missed Fehror's point. He was refering to the fact that a portion of music-grade cdr sales go to the recording artists' guild (I forget what they're called).

In any event, I think xricci has made himself clear - no cdrs period. Let's not put xricci in the inconvenient and legally perilous position of having to verify which albums are in print and which aren't.

[Chuck Nessa]

This is my 2nd reply to this thread. The first went into oblivion. I hope this shows up.

I'm certainly no friend of cdrs. Any royalties being paid by blank tape/cdr companies goes to members of RIAA, ie. the big boys. Since no list of songs copied accompanies the money, the big boys keep all the money. Nothing for indie labels, nothing for artists. It is all a scam, and another profit point for the big boys.

If you make a cdr, and don't buy the material when it is issued legally, you are a thief. Just a smaller (petty)one than the big boys.

[Ed Swinnich]

Originally posted by Chuck Nessa
If you make a cdr, and don't buy the material when it is issued legally, you are a thief. Just a smaller (petty)one than the big boys.

A simple, direct,bottom line answer to an oft considered question.

[RDK]

Originally posted by Chuck Nessa
If you make a cdr, and don't buy the material when it is issued legally, you are a thief.

Do I detect a loophole?

[Swiss Toni]

> If you make a cdr, and don't buy the material when it is issued legally, you are a thief.

this may be true technically, Chuck - but you don't think less of people that make CDR's do you?

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm quite sure my previous posting said what I believe.

[Swiss Toni]

I see

[Pure]

Originally posted by Chuck Nessa
I'm certainly no friend of cdrs. Any royalties being paid by blank tape/cdr companies goes to members of RIAA, ie. the big boys. Since no list of songs copied accompanies the money, the big boys keep all the money. Nothing for indie labels, nothing for artists. It is all a scam, and another profit point for the big boys.

If you make a cdr, and don't buy the material when it is issued legally, you are a thief. Just a smaller (petty)one than the big boys.

Very well said!!!
Folks making cd-r's for themselves isn't the problem.
It's the ones that make, SELL and PROMOTE them that are dregs.
You can't "steal another person's property, only if and when...".
That is the problem. There is no 'if' to it. It's wrong to steal anytime. Never trust someone that is honest or fair only some of the time, or only when it suits them.
According to some sites, I can steal my neighbors car IF,
1) it's no longer being made.
2) if it can't be found at a reasonable price.
3) if I'm just trying to send a message to (Rolls Royce for example)
that they better start making new ones (how I want), and cheap.
4) if you can't afford a legitimate one.

My neighbor will be thrilled.
So will my ethics instructor.

I brought this up on that immoral site, and of course was slammed by the CD-r buyers and sellers.
The MFSL Beatles CD-rs were made in CA. So you do the math.

After I was attacked, They wouldn't let me respond.
Then I started getting all of these threatening PMs.
Again, I couldn't even ask them to stop sending nasty PMs.
(But they allowed folks to keep sending them to me.)


Chuck and I have a bigger responsibility for being honest when it comes to music.
We are professionals in the industry that could take advantage of the situation.
Of course, we never will, and you can trust us, and our ethics at all times.
Stan Ricker is the same, you can trust him 24/7.
People who promote these current counterfiets, should never be trusted anytime for anything.
Honesty and integrity is a full time job.

Thanks to everyone for not supporting anyone who promotes or any 'fence' who sells them.

Disagree with me, but please don't threaten me or call me a "Bisexual" through PM's because I'm trying to be honest and fair. Acceptable behavior some places.
Or if you must, at least let me respond.
Thanks,
dennis

[Pure]

Originally posted by Tjazz

Bill,
Supposedly, ebay sellers and used stores are not selling cd-rs.

They are selling original LPs/CDs.

Tjazz,
Not true, Ebay also supports the MFSL Beatles CD-r sellers and makers.
They are aware 100%, but chose to reap the benefits.
Again, totally immoral.
They've been told 1,000 times, but they claim they aren't aware.
Honesty in the recording industry is a must.
Not so much for the major auction sites. (Right)

[AmirBagachelles]

CDRs of legitimate commercial releases are of course indefensible, it goes without saying, but the label companies are driving bad behavior. And I have CDR copies of out-of-print Don Ellis LPs and others that Sony or whoever will not release for the public to hear. So I am a criminal? Nobody gives a damn about record companies and their monopoly mindset. The companies have killed commercial music with misinformed pricing, which is beholden to their particular bloated corporate lifestyles and overheads. If they can't make a reissue go of it at $9-10 wholesale price per disc, forget it, we are not going to hear it. So we should just be passive and stick to what they feed us from the vault? BS!! Who do you think killed independent record stores? Kids trading CDRs? How about the labels and their take-it-all mindset; they don't provide for an adequate margin at market clearing retail prices for CDs, which probably more like $7-10, not $15-20. Wholesale prices for CDs are too high by a factor of two, ask people in the trenches.

To blame the most enthusiastic music fans, who tend to consume a lot of commercial legit releases and have CDR-enhanced collections of odd (e.g. Ellis from vinyl) and live recordings is ridiculous.

CDRs are not the problem.

[prozak]

This artist didn't get paid royalties. His revenge? To give his works away for free in MP3/OGG/FLAC format.

http://demilich.mindnet.net/

I think the admins here have drawn a distinction between swapping of dubs of rare recordings and the people who either sell CD-Rs or trade CD-Rs of major, easily available recordings.

I would suggest one more possiblity: that some honest people do "try before you buy" and use mp3 trading or CD-R trading thus to avoid spending money on crap... this ultimately benefits the jazz community, as the division of people buying good music as opposed to those who buy crap is thus made larger in proportion to the whole. Musical Darwinism.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Originally posted by prozak
I think the admins here have drawn a distinction between swapping of dubs of rare recordings and the people who either sell CD-Rs or trade CD-Rs of major, easily available recordings.

You mis-read. The "admins" in this case is one: xricci. His first & only post clearly stated that all CD-R trading is forbidden. Rarity, unavailability, etc. do not matter. A CD-R of copyrighted material is a CD-R of copyrighted material. All About Jazz does not wish to have these offered or asked for on their forum.

Later,
Kevin

[Claude]

Originally posted by prozak

I would suggest one more possiblity: that some honest people do "try before you buy" and use mp3 trading or CD-R trading thus to avoid spending money on crap... this ultimately benefits the jazz community, as the division of people buying good music as opposed to those who buy crap is thus made larger in proportion to the whole. Musical Darwinism. [/B]

I agree that "try before you buy" could be beneficiary to music sales, but as long as the industry doesn´t offer this possibility and given the restrictions of copyright law a forum admin cannot take the risk of allowing these sorts of trades on a public website

[jaz_zak]

I only make cdrs for my own personal use.

prozak: what a geat moniker ;)

[OnyaBirri]

If you make a cdr, and don't buy the material when it is issued legally, you are a thief. Just a smaller (petty)one than the big boys.

The assumption here is that the "legal" version is doing justice to the original. I've heard plenty of CD-Rs that were mastered from pristine vinyl or 7 1/2 ips reel tapes that blow away the legal versions. Master tapes can deteriorate after several decades, and the people doing the remastering on official releases can't always be trusted.

That said, I agree with the board's no CD-R policy, while feeling no reservations or guilt about having CD-Rs in my collection.

[Johnny Murgatroyd]

Just thought I'd be pedantic and legal here. Illegally creating CD-R's is not theft. Theft is the removal of an object with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of possession. Copying CDs is copyright infringement (admittedly still potentially criminal in Australia but not *theft*). The making of a reproduction of a piece of literature, music or "artistic work" in Australia breaches the Copyright Act 1995.

[Tenorman]

Since very few of us are lawyers here, and the members are very international, we tend to work on the basis of the lowest common denominator. If you do something that prevents income getting to an artist's wallet, then in simple terms, it is theft, because at the end of the day the perpetrator has something he should have paid for and hasn't: the artist should have some royalties and hasn't.

[snoutinator]

bottom line: illegally copying and distributing CD-Rs is theft. you wanna play your own CD-Rs in the car, no problem. you give them or sell them to someone else, it's theft.

[OnyaBirri]

Making CDRs for people is one kind of theft. Record labels not paying their artists is another. Hmmm...

[Chris A]

Royalties are only paid to the leader--and, even then, not always. The cost of making the recording is absorbed by the leader, so--this cost often being padded by the record company--such checks are rarely received by the artist. I am not talking about major artists whose recordings sell in huge numbers, but rather the average jazz release. So, burning CDs or DVDs of copyrighted commercial recordings basically robs only the recording company (RIAA is organized thievery) and the composers (who often are ripped off by the music publishers). Copying CDs does, of course, also take money out of the dealer's pocket, but it is still theft, even when the major victims themselves are bigger thieves.

Sidemen? They are pre-ripped off.

[jazzcritic]

It's no wonder that more jazz musicians are starting to release CDs through their own labels or through Artist's Share. I've read that Maria Schneider has made more money on her limited edition release for that label (in addition to winning a Grammy and the JJA CD of the Year awards) than any of her Enja CDs.

I don't doubt that the overhead is extremely padded by most of the labels. Someone has to pay for the bigwig's cushy office in an office tower at a big conglomerate.

[OnyaBirri]

It's no wonder that more jazz musicians are starting to release CDs through their own labels or through Artist's Share. I've read that Maria Schneider has made more money on her limited edition release for that label (in addition to winning a Grammy and the JJA CD of the Year awards) than any of her Enja CDs.

I don't doubt that the overhead is extremely padded by most of the labels. Someone has to pay for the bigwig's cushy office in an office tower at a big conglomerate.

Not only that: Some of them make CD-Rs of their own official releases, sign the CD-Rs, scan the artwork and sell them at their shows for like $5 a piece. Probably the first time they've seen any money off of a record sale since they started...

[wordsandsounds]

ArtistShare and other independents are phenomenal ways for artists to make a living, because it makes them more inclinced to be involved with the buisness rather than being simply subject to it. Rope A Dope records (and I can't find it online any longer) once posted the breakdown of how artists get paid and why they have to charge a certain price for a cd. It made a lot of sense, and coming from a label like that it held creedence as well (rather than hearing it from Sony or another major- or should I say the other major?).

I agree with many of the posters here, semantics aside, if you distribute or receive a copy of a cd that is affecting someone (no matter what the structure is) and therefore is wrong.

[Claude]

bottom line: illegally copying and distributing CD-Rs is theft. you wanna play your own CD-Rs in the car, no problem. you give them or sell them to someone else, it's theft.

Legally speaking it is not as strict, at least not in Europe, where most national copyright laws allow the owner of a CD to make a limited number of copies for his own use or for family and friends.

However, offering CD-R trades on a public forum clearly goes beyond that.

[wordsandsounds]

Legally speaking it is not as strict, at least not in Europe, where most national copyright laws allow the owner of a CD to make a limited number of copies for his own use or for family and friends.

However, offering CD-R trades on a public forum clearly goes beyond that.

As I understand it, there are some countries where copyright expires after only 25 years as well which is really strange. One of these days not too far off, those types of issues that are only affecting a small amount of poular msuic is going to become a big problem for record companies. Proper Box Sets of the Beatles or Lonehill releases of any number of popular acts coming out and undercutting the American market. Global markets mean it's a global issue. Only problem is, no one wants to touch it it seems.

[OnyaBirri]

In the US, there is very little output from the 20th Century that is in the public domain, thanks to draconian copyright laws.

[Claude]

It is actually 50 years (EU) vs 70 years (US), the US copyright duration having been extended in the 1990's.

There is no global market for CDs (and DVDs). Given that both the US and EU copyright laws opt for national/regional exhaustion of copyright, the music companies can divide the markets and prohibit parallel imports. It doesn't need region coding (as with DVDs) to do that.

Definitive and Proper CDs with 1950's material are not legit in the US. The US customs could block these imports that are offered by CD Universe, Tower Records and other big stores. Only non-commercial imports (US customer ordering a small number of CDs in a EU store) are legal.

But in the EU too, right holder lobbies are pushing towards an extension of the copyright duration on sound recordings, because the lucrative late 50's and early 60's pop recordings (Beatles, etc) will enter the public domain soon.

[wordsandsounds]

If I remember correctly one country in Europe has a 25 year law. But that matters little overall.

It's hard to say that regional laws can and will have an effect when I can go online and order directly from these companies. Aside from governments and their agencies simply not caring at this point about those imports that are sold for as little as eight dollars here (a proper box for 20), you have to remember that online retailers account for a massive amount of enertainment sales in the US. Some posters here have recently been heavily promoting CD Universe because it is cheaper to purchase them here and ship them over to Europe.

Copyright is goign to be a global issue that probably won't be resolved.

[OnyaBirri]

Europe is 50 years. That's why all these cheap box sets came out in recent years ending in the late 40s or early 50s. It is also why RCA freaked out over the law, as the first Elvis record turned 50 this year (In Europe).

[clave]

Copyright law has been a global issue for a long time (a highly complex one at that) - and I doubt anything's going to happen to decrease its complexity, or to clarify the issues at stake anytime soon.

Try figuring out what the US means by "fair use" vs. what the UK means by that same phrase. Since there is no clear-cut US law defining fair use (it's a doctrine, unlike in the UK), well...

It all gets crazier from there on in.

Europe is 50 years. That's why all these cheap box sets came out in recent years ending in the late 40s or early 50s. It is also why RCA freaked out over the law, as the first Elvis record turned 50 this year (In Europe).

Yup, although not every EU country seems to be under collective EU law regarding copyright. But from there on in, I leave it to the experts! "Labyrinthine" doesn't even begin to do it (er) justice.

[Claude]

Yup, although not every EU country seems to be under collective EU law regarding copyright.

They all are, including the 10 new members who joined in 2004. A directive of 1993 has harmonized duration, but it took until the end of the 90's for all the old member states to implement it.

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyright/term-protection/term-protection_en.htm

The directive even had the consequence that for some works whose protection had expired in certain countries with shorter duration, protection had to be revived.

[clave]

The UK might be agreeing to this in treaties, but it has its own copyright law, just as it has its own currency.

At least, I think that's the case, and am waiting for a UK board member to clarify....

[Johnny Murgatroyd]

***bottom line: illegally copying and distributing CD-Rs is theft. you wanna play your own CD-Rs in the car, no problem. you give them or sell them to someone else, it's theft.***


Er, no, Snout, actually in Australia it is a breach of copyright even to create a CD-R of existing music for your own purpose (at least that's what I remember from my lectures). I understand that this is fairly draconian by world standards.

[Claude]

The UK might be agreeing to this in treaties, but it has its own copyright law, just as it has its own currency.

At least, I think that's the case, and am waiting for a UK board member to clarify....

Sorry, I'm not a UK member, but I know something about EU law and intellectual property law.

The EU copyright legislation consists of "directives", which aim to harmonize national law. They need to be transposed into national law within a certain time (1-2 years). There is no possibility not to implement them (unlike the Euro). The other type of EU legislation are "regulations", which are directly applicable.

So you can be sure that what is in these directives applies in the UK too.

[clave]

Sorry, I'm not a UK member, but I know something about EU law and intellectual property law.

The EU copyright legislation consists of "directives", which aim to harmonize national law. They need to be transposed into national law within a certain time (1-2 years). There is no possibility not to implement them (unlike the Euro). The other type of EU legislation are "regulations", which are directly applicable.

So you can be sure that what is in these directives applies in the UK too.

I believe you, Claude -- it's just that when I spent time looking up various provisions of European copyright law, I came a cross a lot of references to statutes that had been passed in EU member countries that seem to be applicable to this day. Beyond that, I know next to zero, though I think Tenorman has a pretty good grasp of some aspects of UK copyright law.

At any rate, the issue (copyright laws as a whole) is pretty labyrinthine!

Cheers,
clave

[Freek]

Yeah yeah, all very politically correct, but as long as Arista, ICP or FMP don't reissue their 70's releases I'll gladly accept any CD-R copy of the original vinyl (instead of paying big bucks when I happen to find a used original copy). Not Through this BB of course. Oh, and when they do reissue, I'll buy them anyway, no matter if I already have a CD-R. Nothing beats the physical thing.

[Freek]

Woops...just noticed I dug up an ancient thread,

[Tenorman]

Ancient (well a couple of years old) but still valid.

Less than a week ago I deleted a request for copies of a couple of tracks and PM'd the person who posted them. They haven't been back: It was their first post shrug:

There are many musicians on this site, and if we cannot protect their right to royalties from their tracks, then who can

[clave]

N/a (forever) material is very frustrating, and even though i took the "correct" line when I was a mod, I wasn't immune to making or receiving an occasional CD-R of something that's impossible to find and/or only available at ridiculous prices.

I'm still of that opinion.

[Tenorman]

But not on the site: nor admitted to on the site.

There is a difference between a couple of friends exchanging the odd track or album, and someone making available an album to several million people.

Most of us on this site, see the necessity of protecting the rights of muisicians and authors. There is however, an increasing number of people out there who belong to the ME generation. (I take what I want) This necessitates an increasingly pedantic attitude from the rest of us in order to protect the rights of the copyright holders.

This is a horrible statement, but, the more people corrupt the gift of freedom, the more that that freedom will be restricted

[clave]

Like Freek, I'd still rather have a "real" copy - and like Freek, no, no exchanges through this board.

It really is a difficult question when material that's from dead labels is in question, though... i often wonder where the $$ from my Live 365 broadcasts ends up when a label's gone? My fees there cover licensing and permissions, but when there's no viable label, and the musicians are dead, what then?

Obviously the money goes somewhere. I'd like to have a to-the-penny accounting for it.

[Freek]

Let me re-phrase 'not through this board': if I can make a fellow boardmember happy by copying something out of my collection, I'll do that. I'll only communicate about it through PMs, and I choose the boardmembers for who I do this with care.

BUT!
Let me assure you that I am too highly allergic to those people Tenorman describes; all this illegal downloading and the likes will ultimately destroy the music bizz, starting with the small independent labels and artists that we love. Music, like all art, costs money goddammit!!! So; I'll only copy the stuff that is OOP and no longer available.

Another thing I hate is the fact that for instance OOP ICP releases will cost you a fortune (if you can find one), paying 100$ for an LP can never have been the purpose of the artist; he/she will not receive a penny from that amount anyway.

[Prezfan]

I totally agree with you Freek. Copying recordings that are readily available to anyone is ridiculous. You can't complain about how jazz is not getting exposure when you are hurting jazz artists by downloading their music off the internet. If you want it to stay alive, you have to go out and support it by buying the music and going to see the live shows.

Like you I will also gladly copy any rare, out of print music I may have that somebody is looking for. These are recordings that have not been available for a long time and are probably not ever going to be released on disc. In fact, I think it is a good thing to copy these for fellow jazz fans and keep these recordings around, otherwise they will be lost forever. Also, it let's me help out a fellow jazz fan from being ripped off by some store owner who will charge them a price just short of highway robbery for the music they want, and like you said, the artist will never see one cent of that money.

[the magnificent goldberg]

Come off it! When you walk into a second hand record shop, what you see is about a trillion LPs that no one will ever buy, all of which have been paid for by the shopkeeper. I have no objection whatever to the guy charging what the market will bear for the odd rare item that he comes across. More fools they who are happy to be hyped into paying that kind of money.

Seriously though, the problem can't be resolved unless people do some real out of the box thinking, because with the internet and digital reproduction, the box is bust. But, as with other new technologies, the new paradigm will provide new economic opportunities of types that haven't yet been forseen, though they probably could be if someone of sufficient vision applied themselves. The reward could be enormous.

MG

[Bev Stapleton]

As with most issues of morality, this can all get very blurred.

I've often read posters on various bulletin boards taking up very high principled positions on one thread, whilst listing the bootlegs they own on another.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd never download (knowingly) from an illegal site or buy an illegally produced CD/CD-R. But things can get cloudy in the gap between US/European copyright laws. I'm happy to share CD-Rs of OOP material or samplers in private; but would never sell or buy such items - to some the copying and swapping would be quite immoral, regardless of the lack of monetary exchange.

It's not something I do nowadays, but I used to tape records/CDs from the lending library. Illegal and immoral.

And what about radio broadcasts? They come over the air or net waves totally free; making a recording, even for personal use, involves no payment whatsoever to the artists. Is that morally worse than copying a friend's CD?

We can stretch it further. There are oceans of recordings where we know the performers were screwed, where any profit goes into the pockets of other copyright owners. Should we not buy these recordings, however desirable?

I have my own morality on this which might not fit with others; but I'd say we should all be a little cautious before casting stones.

One thing is clear cut: the policy of AAJ is no CD-R trading on board. So, no CD-R trading on board.

[the magnificent goldberg]

I think this is primarily an economic, not a moral, issue. The music industry works in an amoral way and therefore what people decide to do or not do is amoral. If the industry worked in a moral way, the purpose of a record company could be defined as holding in trust the copyrights of the creators of works for the benefit of the creators and their (immediate) families. There would be costs of producing, manufacturing and marketing and a moral system could assume some kind of partnership to defray those costs equitably as between creators and companies.

But that isn't the way things are.

MG

[Bev Stapleton]

I've no doubt that the music industry works on economic lines; but people still take moral stances with regard to it, as they do to all human activity.

All I'm saying is that we need to be careful when taking the moral highground in these debates.

After all, whether we buy a legitimate or illegal recording is pretty small fry in the grand scheme of things. The fact that we spend a small fortune on recordings, most of which sit unplayed on our shelves for great lengths of time, whilst much of the world goes hungry...now there's a real moral dilemma to wrestle with. One I push out of my mind constantly.

[OnyaBirri]

Receiving a CD-R of something that is in print does not neccesarily provide a substitute for the actual release. It can introduce you to an artist that you may not have heard otherwise, and you end up spending money buying releases by that person. And if I really love the album, having a CD-R just makes me want the real thing that much more.

Little of this argument applies to me though. I generally buy second hand vinyl, mostly by artists who are dead, the sessions having been paid for long ago. And if someone hands me a CD-R of Bud Powell or Duke Ellington along the way, I don't face any moral dilemmas.

[clave]

I've run into the dilemma of having bought "new" reissues from a legit dealer, only to find out later that they were pirated, ripped right from vinyl - but looking *very* official, right down to the silkscreening on the CDs themselves.

If I had known at the time of sale, I wouldn't have bought them. But I didn't, and so they're in my collection.

Someone made some fast bucks on an artist who seldom gets the recognition they deserve, and who doesn't own the rights to the recordings in question...

I'd far rather see people trading the occasional CD-R than making and selling pirated recordings - that's not a big problem in the US, but in many other countries, it's commonplace.

as for used record and book dealers, sure, they can charge whatever they want, though too often their prices aren't (I think) realistic or very fair. But then, if they 'd rather not sell an item and wait and wait for someone to come along and pay through the nose, it's their problem, not mine. ;)

Edit: If I rip an o.p. LP (never to be reissued, and there are a lot of those) and upload a cut to stream on my show, who's getting paid (permissions/licenses)? Not the artist, and often, not the record company, either.

So is it immoral to broadcast something when the people who created it will never benefit?

I realize this is hair-splitting, but it bothers me a lot.

[Freek]

Edit: If I rip an o.p. LP (never to be reissued, and there are a lot of those) and upload a cut to stream on my show, who's getting paid (permissions/licenses)? Not the artist, and often, not the record company, either.

So is it immoral to broadcast something when the people who created it will never benefit?
The people who have created an OOP, never to be reissued recording will not profit anyway from that recording. But they can be appreciated and honoured by playing the recording on your show.

[Prezfan]

Come off it! When you walk into a second hand record shop, what you see is about a trillion LPs that no one will ever buy, all of which have been paid for by the shopkeeper.MG

Yeah, but keep in mind that what he paid for those LPs is not even close to what they are being sold for. My uncle sold all of his records about 9 months ago and got about 25 cents per record and maybe 50 cents for something they considered more desirable. When they were put on the shelf they were being sold for between 5 and 10 dollars, a few for even more than 10 dollars. So you figure that for each LP that is sold the owner is getting 10 times more than they paid for it, sometimes even more. The owner knows that a portion of that stuff is never going to sell, but he also knows that whatever he does sell he has made a damn good profit on, getting a hell of a lot more than he paid for it. Hey, if it wasn't profitable he wouldn't be in business in the first place, right? Besides, I guarantee you that the owner makes his money off of selling LPs of people like Elvis, The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, The Temptations, The Rolling Stones, and Marvin Gaye and not out of print jazz albums he sells for $200, so it's not like you're killing the business of second hand shops by copying some good, but out of print music for a fellow jazz fan.

I don't disagree with you MG. Hey, if some rich schmuck is willing to pay a whole crapload of money for it, I have no problem with that. But if I can help out a friend who has some rare stuff that they want to preserve by transferring it from vinyl to disc, or making them a copy of some rare out of print material I happen to own, then I will do that. That's just my personal feelings on the matter. I'm not saying that anyone has to agree with me.

And when it comes to rare recordings only available on vinyl, best thing to do is transfer it to disc to preserve it, because you play an LP enough times it will wear out and chances are you will not be able to find it again. And there's a lot of really great music out there that for some reason (lack of popularity I guess) is out of print and will never be released.

Keep in mind, these are just my personal opinions on this particular issue. I'm not saying "Hey, this is right and this is wrong!" I'm just saying what my personal feelings are. This is an issue with so much grey area.

[the magnificent goldberg]

Yeah, but keep in mind that what he paid for those LPs is not even close to what they are being sold for. My uncle sold all of his records about 9 months ago and got about 25 cents per record and maybe 50 cents for something they considered more desirable. When they were put on the shelf they were being sold for between 5 and 10 dollars, a few for even more than 10 dollars. So you figure that for each LP that is sold the owner is getting 10 times more than they paid for it, sometimes even more. The owner knows that a portion of that stuff is never going to sell, but he also knows that whatever he does sell he has made a damn good profit on, getting a hell of a lot more than he paid for it. Hey, if it wasn't profitable he wouldn't be in business in the first place, right? Besides, I guarantee you that the owner makes his money off of selling LPs of people like Elvis, The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, The Temptations, The Rolling Stones, and Marvin Gaye and not out of print jazz albums he sells for $200, so it's not like you're killing the business of second hand shops by copying some good, but out of print music for a fellow jazz fan.

I don't disagree with you MG. Hey, if some rich schmuck is willing to pay a whole crapload of money for it, I have no problem with that. But if I can help out a friend who has some rare stuff that they want to preserve by transferring it from vinyl to disc, or making them a copy of some rare out of print material I happen to own, then I will do that. That's just my personal feelings on the matter. I'm not saying that anyone has to agree with me.

And when it comes to rare recordings only available on vinyl, best thing to do is transfer it to disc to preserve it, because you play an LP enough times it will wear out and chances are you will not be able to find it again. And there's a lot of really great music out there that for some reason (lack of popularity I guess) is out of print and will never be released.

Keep in mind, these are just my personal opinions on this particular issue. I'm not saying "Hey, this is right and this is wrong!" I'm just saying what my personal feelings are. This is an issue with so much grey area.

I'm with you Prezfan. I was merely saying that one shouldn't excoriate a second hand merchant for charging what the market will bear. The typical owner of a second hand record shop isn't in the Rolls Royce bracket. He's probably doing reasonably well, if he's got some feel for the local market.

Organisations like DIW, who run a chain of second hand stores in Japan are a different matter. They are making a damn sight more money out of used material than their jazz record label is, I judge.

MG

[Prezfan]

I'm with you Prezfan. I was merely saying that one shouldn't excoriate a second hand merchant for charging what the market will bear. The typical owner of a second hand record shop isn't in the Rolls Royce bracket. He's probably doing reasonably well, if he's got some feel for the local market.

Organisations like DIW, who run a chain of second hand stores in Japan are a different matter. They are making a damn sight more money out of used material than their jazz record label is, I judge.

MG

Maybe I just let my personal feelings come out too much. I guess I've just seen too many occasions where second hand merchants tried to put very high prices on things that never should have been priced anywhere near what they were asking. For example, one day I was in a second hand record store and saw an LP on the wall rack titled "Charlie Parker and Lester Young: Historical Meeting" and it was priced for $45. I asked if this was Bird and Prez playing together and the owner told me yes. I had my doubts because I'm a huge fan of both Bird and Prez and had never seen nor heard of this recording and I could tell by the songs it wasn't any of the JATP recordings. So I asked if I could listen to it. At first the guy told me no because he was afraid I might scratch it. But when I put it back on the rack he relented. Well, I quickly found out that this was definitely not Bird and Prez playing together, it was four tracks by Bird and then four by Prez. They were both playing below par and on top of it, the sound quality was horrible. This is only one of many experiences I've had where second hand merchants purposely overpricing material trying to make it look like some great, rare recording when it really should not have been priced any higher than any of the other recordings you would commonly find by that artist.

Of course, I'm not saying that all second hand dealers are bad either. Bob Koster, who owns the Jazz Record Mart here in Chicago is a very helpful and honest person when it comes to music and recordings, as are some other merchants that I know in the area around here.

BTW, I never said that second hand shop owners were in the Rolls Royce bracket. I was just saying that even though they have a lot of stuff that doesn't sell, they are still making their profit, that's all.:wink2:

[OnyaBirri]

...This is only one of many experiences I've had where second hand merchants purposely overpricing material trying to make it look like some great, rare recording when it really should not have been priced any higher than any of the other recordings you would commonly find by that artist...

I could also be an example of how record store owners often don't know what the hell they're selling. This is very common. They see a price listed in one of the guides - which are all over the map and highly inaccurate themselves - and they slap the sticker on.

[tayyab]

Hi, This post of yours is very beneficial and informative, however there are some specific facts or information that I require. If anyone can help me in this matter then please send me a private message. Best Regards,

Tayyab -- we exterminate spammers like you. and take your Dubai properties with you

[annierob54]

the people who have created an oop, never to be reissued recording will not profit anyway from that recording. But they can be appreciated and honoured by playing the recording on your show.

i am a vocalist/keyboardist but when money and work were tight, i started working as a federal piracy officer. Mostly fights in bars (on tv) that were not sanctioned, but i am familiar w/ copyright laws. People get crazy trying to make a joke of it, but if you were an artist w/ several cd's and they were being bootlegged and you received no profit you'd me plenty angry .
On the other hand, if you want to record "summertime" ,you don't have to exhume george gershwin's body to make sure he gets his share.