Re: Todays Amoeba Records CD Haul

JimK wrote: 
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:33:39 -0800, JC Martin <jcmartin@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Richard Morris wrote:

"Ken Fortenberry" <kenfortenberry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:rggBf.15045$Jd.4877@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Stuknot wrote:


Ken Fortenberry wrote:


colonialacres wrote:


Ken, I'm not sure how you can think this is stealing. 

I think Buy/Burn/Return is theft because after the process
is over you own somebody else's property and you didn't
pay them full price for it.



... They make out in several ways, and the
seller/trader (Dave) walks away happy too.


Sure, the record store does fine, the fuckin' scumbags
are happy and the artist gets screwed.


We're talking about used CDs, I believe.  Unless you consider any
selling of used CD's theft you're on shakey ground.  The artist was
paid a royalty when the CD was sold new.  The original owner was paid
when he sold the CD to Amoeba.  Amoeba was paid 25% of their used CD
price to let it out of their store for a week and may be paid their
full used price if and when someone else buys it.  Exactly who is
getting screwed?


The artist. If you want to sell a used CD that's cool, so
long as you don't retain a copy. But if you copy a CD and
then go sell the original you're screwing the artist and
you're a fuckin' scumbag.


The artist got his cut on the original sale.


...except that cut probably went to the record company to pay off debt incurred from marketing expenses.

-JC 


That may be true, but the artist still got his cut even if it was
diverted to debt reduction. Same as having your car or health
insurance deducted from you paycheck.



I wouldn't call it the same. IMO, the debt is unethical in itself. Much of it is goes to frivolous perks for industry types. I get your point, but the lack of ethics in copying a disc are far outweighed by the lack of ehtics in the music industry itself. That's the overall point I'm trying to make.

-JC
.

Loading