Trading collections

Tips and techniques of the trade

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Message
Author
User avatar
Swifty
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:53 pm
Location: NY, NY
Contact:

#31 Post by Swifty » Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:54 pm

Roy wrote:I'm just curious if anyone realizes that if you are a major DJ in a popular dance club music style you get thousands of songs for free from the record companies. I knew a guy who would get around 15 records a day mailed to him for no charge from the record companies. Why? because they wanted their songs played at dance clubs, because then other people would hear it and want to buy it.
Man, that's a real stretch. Being sent a promotional copy of a CD is very different than burning it illegally from someone.

Roy
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:23 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

#32 Post by Roy » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:16 pm

Swifty wrote:
Roy wrote:I'm just curious if anyone realizes that if you are a major DJ in a popular dance club music style you get thousands of songs for free from the record companies. I knew a guy who would get around 15 records a day mailed to him for no charge from the record companies. Why? because they wanted their songs played at dance clubs, because then other people would hear it and want to buy it.
Man, that's a real stretch. Being sent a promotional copy of a CD is very different than burning it illegally from someone.
Maybe, but my point being is there are some cases out there where people want there music played by DJs and don't care if the DJ pays for it. In swing the record companies generally don't do that, but I know of a few cases that it did happen. And in some cases some musicians have the same opinion. In all but one case with me I promised them I would not hand it to others and I have not.

Roy
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:23 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

#33 Post by Roy » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:20 pm

So I ask the question again. Because no one has addressed it. People who think swapping music is bad because it takes away money from the record companies and indirectly from musicians. Do these people also only buy new CD's because buying used CD's gives no money to the record companies either.

User avatar
wheresmygravy
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:24 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

#34 Post by wheresmygravy » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:24 pm

Roy wrote:Another point is if some people are so up in arms against record companies not get the money for ripped songs then you should also be up in arms agains people buying only used CD's because the record companies do not get the money from that either.
Yeah, this has always been a question mark in my mind. I know I buy probably half of my CD's at a used CD store. Does the Record company/artists/producers/editors/etc get any of this money? Or do the used stores keep all that money, which after all is only 3 or 4 bucks because they just bought it from someone anyway. Or is this one of those ASCAP License things where the money just goes into a big pot.

Just for the record, I also have little respect for someone who's collection is made up of acquired music and they have no idea what they have. Altho, it was tempting when Kalman left his collection at my house for a week. I did at least go spy what CD's he did have that I wanted to put on my wish list. By the way, Kalman, aren't you going out of town this week.... :lol: Oh wait, I hope I'm not the guy you were talkin about?????

User avatar
Bob the Builder
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

#35 Post by Bob the Builder » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:53 pm

Roy wrote:So I ask the question again. Because no one has addressed it. People who think swapping music is bad because it takes away money from the record companies and indirectly from musicians. Do these people also only buy new CD's because buying used CD's gives no money to the record companies either.
I'm not sure on the legality behind second hand music shops. But with the power the government copyright sections have, I could "not" see how they (second hand shops) could operate illegally, without the copyright sections shutting them down. Going from this, I have no problem in buying second hand music from “genuine sources”.

Brian
Image

Nate Dogg
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:29 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#36 Post by Nate Dogg » Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:45 pm

Regarding used CDs.

In theory, the copyright, etc... was "paid" when the original owner bought the CD.

Some of you may recall, back in the mid 90s, before the peer to peer download and MP3s were getting all the attention, there was a push from the RIAA, Garth Brooks and others to restrict used sales. It was laughable at the time. Garth Brooks would hold press conferences complaining about much money he was losing due to the used market.

If the industry could shut down used CD sales they would, in a heartbeat, they simply can't.

Nathan

User avatar
LindyChef
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:52 pm
Location: Houston and Seattle (bi-coastal wanna-be)
Contact:

#37 Post by LindyChef » Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:20 pm

Roy wrote:So I ask the question again. Because no one has addressed it. People who think swapping music is bad because it takes away money from the record companies and indirectly from musicians. Do these people also only buy new CD's because buying used CD's gives no money to the record companies either.
That was discussed a bit in this thread:

http://www.swingdjs.com/phpbb2/viewtopi ... used#11962

User avatar
Mr Awesomer
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:21 pm
Location: Altadena, CA
Contact:

#38 Post by Mr Awesomer » Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:38 am

Another difference with used CDs is that the original owner is giving up his "rights" to the music therein (or at least SHOULD be.) It's like selling a used car... you can't sell it and keep it at the same time. They are saying "hey, I really don't like or want this music, but maybe someone else would." This is very different from giving someone the music and also keeping a copy for yourself.
Reuben Brown
Southern California

Roy
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:23 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

#39 Post by Roy » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:45 am

So here's another tricky trick someone pulled on me once. I went to DJ at a party and the host said the DJ stuff would be set up. When I got there I was supposed to use my CDs to DJ on his computer. Not thinking much of it, I did. At the time I was not much of a tech geek. I only had CD's I had never DJed off a computer before. I had never done anything on a computer except burn promo copies of set lists to get gigs. I was rather technologically deficient. The next time I was at his house I noticed all the songs I played were now on his computer.

I should be mad but I'm not. I just don't get mad very often. But I do have to admit I thought it was bit tricky.

User avatar
yedancer
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 8:08 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

#40 Post by yedancer » Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:45 am

Roy wrote:So I ask the question again. Because no one has addressed it. People who think swapping music is bad because it takes away money from the record companies and indirectly from musicians. Do these people also only buy new CD's because buying used CD's gives no money to the record companies either.
At least buying used CDs keeps the economy of music going. Also, it's legal. I don't really do it all that much, but it's better than stealing music.
-Jeremy

It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money. And I guess that's what I like about it. It's easy. Just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money.

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#41 Post by CafeSavoy » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:02 am

GuruReuben wrote:Another difference with used CDs is that the original owner is giving up his "rights" to the music therein (or at least SHOULD be.) It's like selling a used car... you can't sell it and keep it at the same time. They are saying "hey, I really don't like or want this music, but maybe someone else would." This is very different from giving someone the music and also keeping a copy for yourself.
That was more true before the existence of personal computers. Now you really can't say anything about what the owner did with the contents of the disc. You can only say that he give up his rights to the disc.

User avatar
Mr Awesomer
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 10:21 pm
Location: Altadena, CA
Contact:

#42 Post by Mr Awesomer » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:56 am

You don't own the music when you buy a CD, or even a legal MP3 download. Instead you are just buying a license to use it. Thus, reselling that CD relinquishes your license to it, not just the physical disc. Unless you're just saying this is all highly unenforceable, which is definitely the case.
Reuben Brown
Southern California

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#43 Post by CafeSavoy » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:16 pm

GuruReuben wrote:Unless you're just saying this is all highly unenforceable, which is definitely the case.
Exactly, and that's why the whole digital rights issue on that AAC thread.

Nate Dogg
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:29 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#44 Post by Nate Dogg » Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:42 pm

I went digging around and found an old article from 1993, discussing the whole Garth Brooks, used CD thing.

Garth Brooks' distributor says stores dealing in the second hand goods can order his new album.
Sunday, August 08, 1993. Los Angeles Times
Story by Story by Chuck Phillips

Country music superstar Garth Brooks has apparently backed down on his pledge to withhold his new album from stores that sell used compact discs.

CEMA, the company that distributes Brooks' music, began notifying used-CD merchants Thursday that they could place orders for Brooks' upcoming "In Pieces" album. The action was a reversal of the firm's original retaliatory policy issued in writing Aug. 5.

Representatives for Brooks--who last month said he opposed secondhand CD sales because artists aren't paid royalties on such transactions--declined to comment. Executives at CEMA, which is owned by Thorn-EMI, did not return phone calls, but sources at the company said the distribution firm has been under pressure from within to back off its staunch position against used-CD sellers for about a week, primarily due to the negative press the policy has generated.

CEMA and three other major record firms--Time Warner's WEA, Matsushita's UNI and Sony Music Distribution--are under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission and have been the target of several antitrust lawsuits related to their policies against used CDs.

The most prominent case involves Wherehouse Entertainment, which started the brouhaha over secondhand CDs when it began selling them in December. In a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit in Los Angeles federal court, Wherehouse charges that the four record conglomerates conspired to "unreasonably restrain trade" by eliminating advertising and promotional allowances to retailers who sell used CDs.

Last month, Brooks' stance against used CDs so infuriated West Coast consumers that hundreds of fans last week roasted the singer's albums in protest, staging "Garth Buck$ BAR-B-Qs" from Seattle to Los Angeles--including one bonfire at Silver Lake-based Rockaway Records.

Insiders predicted that CEMA would be slapped with additional litigation if Brooks made good on his promise to withhold "In Pieces" to all used-CD merchants.

Brooks' latest move may prove embarrassing to executives at the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, who Wednesday publicly trashed used-CD merchants and announced their support for Brooks and other such opponents.

"We see this as a victory for all of Garth's fans, including those who enjoy purchasing used CDs," said Bruce Jesse, vice president of marketing communications for Wherehouse.

"The law does not allow CEMA to exclude a retailer from purchasing the Garth CD just because they are in the used-CD business," Jesse said.

Used CDs sound just as good as new ones and usually cost about half as much. Industry surveys indicate that nearly half the nation's "active" record buyers have purchased at least one used CD in 1993--at prices ranging from $1 to $9.

Record executives oppose the expansion of the used-CD market because they fear such transactions will reduce purchases of new products and may also diminish the perceived value of the industry's biggest moneymaking audio format. Sales of compact discs totaled more than $5 billion in sales in 1992.

il glenn hot
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:47 am
Contact:

#45 Post by il glenn hot » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:07 am

GuruReuben wrote:
Why should record companies bother paying for equipment and technicians to do a quality job of restoring a bunch of old music with limited market value just to have it stolen by a bunch of cheapskates?
I've heard alot of people (not neccesarily in this thread) say that they feel that stealing classic swing is OK because all of the artists are dead. I think remastering a CD, if not art, is at the least a giant pain in the ass. Someone sat there for days and remastered every one of those songs. You don't just push the "remaster" button.

In addition, to what Reuben said, about the release of fewer albums, I think it is also important to consider the effect on technological developments. If people who care about swing music don't invest in it, not only will the companies release fewer albums, and fewer remastered albums, but less money will go into the technology to improve the audio quality of future re-releases.
-g

Locked