Buying Used CD's

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

...kind of on a related not to burning CD's.

What happens to this money? And I'm talking about big artists (I see no reason in not paying full price to help out a fellow artist), say Lovano, The Marsalis', Brecker, Nic Payton etc.

I'm not on the highest income in the world, and I make a concious effort to buy CD's, though I often find myself borowing them from the library and making myself a copy. I find buying used CD's an immensely better deal, and I feel like I'm doing jazz a favor, but where does the money really go?

-52nd

[Gary Sisco]

To the guy who owns the shop. Neither label nor musician receive any money from the used trade.

[stonemonkts]

When you buy a used CD from me, the money goes towards the purchase of another CD, so in a sense another artist is receiving the monies (in some cases, the same artist by sheer coincidence).

I would assume other collectors who recycle their collection do the same thing.

[Gary Sisco]

Of course, but used stores aren't run necessarily or even often by collectors.

[crawjo]

Well, technically, the artist already received royalties from the initial sale. Supposing that the person who bought it the first time didn't care for it, I don't see anything wrong with buying a used cd.

[Gentle Giant]

Whether it's cars, books, CDs, LPs, tapes, vids, furniture, clothing, toys...used merchandise is a legitimate market. The owners of used car lots or used or second-hand stores have costs to meet and they are entitled to the full proceeds of the merchandise they sell.

[Tom Storer]

As Gary said, 52ndStreet, when you buy used anything the money goes straight to the seller. There are no royalties to pay because they were already accounted for in the initial purchase. The rights-holder gets royalties when each copy goes into the world at large after its creation; the path it takes after the initial sale doesn't factor in. In theory, an uncopied CD, whether resold or not, is in only one person's possession at a time, and that's what the royalties paid in the initial purchase correspond to--transfer to one person's possession, not who specifically is in possession over time.

[claude]

If Microsoft was running the music business, I'm sure there would be some way of collecting royalties on each transfer of ownership

[steve(thelil)]

I can attest from personal experience that the fact that one can resell a cd if you don't dig it adds to my perception of the cd's value and increases the amount of initial cd purchases. And the ability to buy used cds makes collecting affrordable, and since I collect, I also buy new cds.

[Thelonious Nick]

I have bought quite a few vinyl records in used record/CD shops, as there is really no other way to get them nowadays. But I dislike buying used CDs as I find the previous owner often did not have the same standard of care as I have for my CDs. I've bought one too many used CDs with a scratched surface, dogworn liner notes, or greasy jewel case.

Besides, with the advent of Amazon and other Internet sources, I find that CDs that were previously difficult to find are now easily available, so much of the impetus for used CD buying is gone.

[Gentle Giant]

As was mentioned in the burn vs. buy thread, there are promotional copies of CDs that are apparently not legal to sell but are quite easy to find in used stores. In fact, as kids, my friends and I thought there was quite a cachet in buying a promo LP with a big-ass record company sticker on it. But for me, at least when I was younger, the appeal of used stores was equally about the ephemera for sale: posters, press kits, promotional displays, specialty packaging, stickers, buttons, etc. You don't see that stuff much anymore.

[Gary Sisco]

There is a very common misperception at work here. There is almost no likelihood that a jazz artist received anything but an advance against future royalties at release. And more often than not, that's all most jazz artists will ever see. So just because something is a used commodity and therefore sellable (with which I agree) doesn't mean that artists have already received royalties. More than likely, they haven't.

This is certainly the case, and always has been, for promos, which make up a large proportion of the used trade. Any CD marked as a promo copy that's for sale, anywhere, is illegal and has also been charged *against* the artist's royalties as a promo expense (as are all promo expenses, including imaginary ones). That aspect of the used trade is, to me, immoral, as both the seller and the store are personally profiting while the artist is actually losing royalties on the deal. A used legit purchase is one thing. Selling promos that were sent to critics or radio stations or what not, for a personal gain, is another altogether. That's really doing a cat wrong, in my book. No practical difference between that and a boot, really.

[JazzAt52ndStreet]

......so is there no difference in me burning a friends copy and me buying a used one?......in terms of supporting the genre and musician?

-52nd

[Jazzooo]

That is correct, 52nd...though I feel that the used CD market is somehow different from what we've been discussing, I can't really conjur up much passion for that argument. But I hope people read Gary's last post carefully--those promo CDs are a definite ripoff. When you read that Mark K sent out 600 promo CDs (in the legitimate hopes of advancing his career, since most of us can't sell music without getting people to listen to it) and then you realize that you might have bought one at a used shop to save a few bucks, and that the recipient of the CD basically snakes artist all the time in the same way...Well, I certainly wouldn't want to preach a moral certaintude, but dude that's just wrong.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Rainman

There is a very common misperception at work here. There is almost no likelihood that a jazz artist received anything but an advance against future royalties at release. And more often than not, that's all most jazz artists will ever see. So just because something is a used commodity and therefore sellable (with which I agree) doesn't mean that artists have already received royalties. More than likely, they haven't.

That certainly won't be a common misperception among anyone who reads these threads at Jazz Corner, at least.

[Gary Sisco]

True nuff, Tom, and the more who start getting it, the better, for the musicians.

Thanks for the careful reading, Doug. I have no problem with someone taking a legit purchase to the used store for cash or trade in other legit used CDs. Whatever commodity is bought, can be sold again. No difference between legit transactions like that and buying a used car or anything else.

*But the promos aren't "used" products.* They more often than not are sold by radio station music managers or other people who routinely receive promos from the labels. In Burlington, near where I live, there's a guy who's on the Grammy voting bloc or whatever it's called. Anyway, he gets tons of promos, all the time, and most apparently go unlistened to. Certainly unkept. His son brings them down to the used store and sells them. I've seen many a brand new jazz CD there, ahead of its release date. And that's far from the only store. In New York, some years back, the same day I was going to hear the band at VV, there were already promos of Osby/Lovano's "Friendly Fire" in the used stores, which hadn't even been officially released yet. People in New York could buy it in the used stores before it was even for sale in the retail shops, for nine bucks. The guy selling it to the store got, say, four bucks in cash or trade for something he hadn't paid for (but the artists had) and the store the rest. That's a double personal gain on a CD that's a definite, in-the-books loss for the artists. I see stuff like that all the time in used stores. Radio people are the worst for it -- college radio very much included -- though many a critic also lugs a bagfull to the used shops on a regular basis, again for personal gain. That sucks, no matter how you slice it.

Apparently the record companies have no problem with it, since it's long been a traditional practice, even in the vinyl days. And why should they, since the artist's paying for it? They haven't lost a penny in the deal.

[Paul B]

All this begs a question: what do reviewers/stations do with the promo copies they're not going to use? Is it ethical to give them to a library, or a school?

[VIBEr]

Originally Posted by Paul B

All this begs a question: what do reviewers/stations do with the promo copies they're not going to use? Is it ethical to give them to a library, or a school?

Of course it's ethical, but often it is a matter of who originally received the promo copy. Some reviewers pass them on to their friends who in turn trade in the promos for new copies, and others do as you suggest and donate them to the library.

[bostontricky]

Is it ethical for a used CD store to sell you a promo CD, but then refuse to buy it back? I've got a little beef with the local place about this.

[Chris D]

Originally Posted by bostontricky

Is it ethical for a used CD store to sell you a promo CD, but then refuse to buy it back? I've got a little beef with the local place about this.

Well, they're not supposed to buy them in the first place. But if they sold it to you, obviously they saw fit to buy it at one point.

Nothing in their behavior is ethical, but a lot seems hypocritical.

[Jason Bivins]

I don't get a whole lot of promos - and I certainly only get stuff from very small labels, often run by friends like Chris Forsyth - but what I can't actually write up anywhere I either keep or pass on to friends. Seems like the right thing to do.

[GoodSpeak]

Having waited before I responded and reading all the posts here, I have to fully agree with Gary's take on the issue.

I am very sorry if this blows the lid off of things for musicians and I am equally sorry if selling/buying used CDs hurts an artist financially. But the bottom line is that we all live and work in a Capitalist society. The object of the capitalist "game," if you will, is to make money.

It seems more than a little protectionist or isolationist to pressume that an owner of a CD cannot sell it to another party wherein they make a profit [if I choose to] after the original seller has already recieved his profit from the first sale. The product/CD is in my poossesion now and in our society, I am free to do with it as I choose: Sell it, keep it, record it or give it away.

IMHO, objecting to this kind of practice would be the same as telling me I cannot sell my used Toyota because the original "owner" or licensee will not see a profit. I am the owner, for cryin' out loud. I get to sell it, keep it, record it on a photograph or give it away. I can even dismantle my truck and sell the individual parts OR rebuild it and make it better....and at my discretion. I'm the owner, for Pete's sake.


The US Constitution, Federal Trade Commision, US Tax Code and reality are very clear on that point.



They made money, now I make money off that purchase and the cycle continues. Anything less is a clear violation of my rights as an owner and a unfair reservation of possession by the artist/licensee, IMHO.

[Gary Sisco]

Goodie -- If you look at the warning clearly printed on a promo CD, it announces in the clearest terms that it's not for sale, legally, and that it is the property of the label, to be used for promo purposes only. It's as clear a warning as the (interminable) ones at the beginning of any video you watch. That's what makes it different from other commodities, and I agree with you that they can be bought and sold as people wish, since it's not hurting anyone to do so. But the promo business actively rips off artists, period, no other way to look at it. And not just that, but for the personal gain of the seller and the used store. It's the personal financial gains at the expense of others that to me makes it immoral. I see no practical difference between buying selling promos and selling boots.

Giving them away I have no problem with, as no one is making a financial gain. No one who's huge on the promo mailing list could keep everything they receive, I'd guess, but selling them for personal cash or trade is another thing altogether.

[bostontricky]

To those of you who own CD-Rs of out-of-print material: do you feel an obligation to pick up a used copy of the CD (when available) at any price, or are you content to wait for a reissue, if any? Anyone fairly recent to the jazz thing missed out on a bunch of material back in the early 90s.

From personal experience: I had to wait over a year before I saw a copy of Joe McPhee's "Impressions of Jimmy Giuffre". I had to pay around $35 (when would I see another) and the CD was missing the rear traycard.

This may split more down the collectors vs. non-collectors line rather than any ethical divide.

[Jazzooo]

"Goodie -- If you look at the warning clearly printed on a promo CD, it announces in the clearest terms that it's not for sale, legally, and that it is the property of the label, to be used for promo purposes only."

It seemed like Tim was talking about used CDs in general, not promotional
CDs that shouldn't be in used stores to begin with.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Rainman

Goodie -- If you look at the warning clearly printed on a promo CD, it announces in the clearest terms that it's not for sale, legally, and that it is the property of the label, to be used for promo purposes only. It's as clear a warning as the (interminable) ones at the beginning of any video you watch. That's what makes it different from other commodities, and I agree with you that they can be bought and sold as people wish, since it's not hurting anyone to do so. But the promo business actively rips off artists, period, no other way to look at it. And not just that, but for the personal gain of the seller and the used store. It's the personal financial gains at the expense of others that to me makes it immoral. I see no practical difference between buying selling promos and selling boots.

Giving them away I have no problem with, as no one is making a financial gain. No one who's huge on the promo mailing list could keep everything they receive, I'd guess, but selling them for personal cash or trade is another thing altogether.

Gary,

I wasn't referring to Promos.

I was referring to used CDs as a whole group.

I just thought your take on used CDs sales was spot on the mark; on this thread and the CD burning thread, too.

Specifically, the first paragraph in your post #12 was more to the point of my response.

Sorry for any confusion...

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Jazzooo

"Goodie -- If you look at the warning clearly printed on a promo CD, it announces in the clearest terms that it's not for sale, legally, and that it is the property of the label, to be used for promo purposes only."

It seemed like Tim was talking about used CDs in general, not promotional
CDs that shouldn't be in used stores to begin with.

Thank you, Doug.

[Gary Sisco]

I understood that, thanks.

To answer the question above. At "any" price? Obviously, no. At a reasonable price? Sure, and I have. So have people who've been given copies by me of o.o.p. stuff. For example, there was a time when "O'Neal's Porch" was o.o.p., so I gave several people copies of it. All of them bought one legit when the second pressing came out, so they could have the cover and CD and all.

That $35 dollar stuff is for CD or record collectors. Personally, I'm a music collector. They're not the same animals. There are damned few records in the world that I'd pay $35 for. Maybe a cherry Michael Hurley (Raccoon label) from the 60s, but only if it was cherry vinyl. That's about all I can imagine off hand. It's not necessary for a music collector to pay out like that. Shit comes in and out of print all the time. It's only a matter of waiting for something to become available again, or finding it in a store run by people who don't know what they have.

There used to be used vinyl shop I often frequented, run by a guy who knew nothing about any music but classic rock, so I'd go through his jazz and other sections once a week or so, and several times got unbelievable gems for four bux american, simply because the guy was ignorant of other musics. On the other hand, he'd have "original" vinyl releases of Beatles and stuff like that, with prices like $60 or whatever. I can't imagine why anyone would pay that much for something that's so common and readily available, just because it's "original," but everyone has different interests, I guess. The music is the same, either way. That's why I'm a music collector and not a record collector.

I do own a few rarities but only things I've found at reasonable prices, through the years. I have a near-mint Billie Holiday 78, for example, that I bought at a record show in a Holiday Inn banquet hall. $10, about eight years ago. I thought that was reasonable enough, considering its condition.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

I'll be real honest with you guys. the only time I ever buy a non-classical cd these days (ie. jazz or rock or whatever) it's directly from the artist at a show. Ie. I put the money in Ken Vandermark's hand. thats really the only way you can be sure that the artist is going to get any of your money.

unfortunately, and I'm not saying this is true of our favorite labels, but a lot of indie labels fuck their artists just as bad if not worse than the majors. I doubt the prominent indie-jazz labels of today do it, but a lot of the rock labels do.

I used to buy a ton of used cds until I figured out it was 8 dollars I could have spent on a falafel and a shake and just download the music for free.

so now, either I buy whatever it is at a show, order it directly from an artist (or label in the case of atavistic etc.) or get a burn from a friend or download whatever it is I want to listen to.