Customer Discussions > mp3 discussion forum

What should I do with my CDs?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 361 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jun 2012 13:19:37 BDT
i agree, it sucks that so many people are just accepting what is new. I consider anyone who collects CD's, DVD's etc as collectors, I dont consider building a digital collection only as the same thing.

Having a CD, waiting for a CD in the mail etc is much more exciting and satisfying than downloading it.

Posted on 3 Jun 2012 15:34:27 BDT
Mr. J. Lord says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 3 Jun 2012 15:48:47 BDT
Mr. J. Lord says:
A comment on format
Cd's hold a very close copy in quality to vinyl tho vinyl is probably top at present. you may want to reconsider buying mp3 d/loads as reproduction is absolutely diabolically inferior, understand now mp3 is a compression format that does compress the file but in doing so it loose a lot of the detail most noticeable on both ends of the sound spectrum on decompressing for play the quality is very degraded. The recommendation is if you d/load minimal flac is the way if your in windows wav is best less hassle getting it played as windows is the home of wav otherwise d/load the free VLC media player it plays all. To verify my facts to be true Wikipedia the formats and read for yourself i kid you not. I use wav & I have ripped my cd collection through wmp but yes I still own the cd's

Posted on 3 Jun 2012 17:03:22 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
I posted this 3 pages back but as some people are intent on using scare tactics I'll repost the original:

The law is the law but it is not set in stone, each case will always be considered individually. The authorities know very well that there are millions and millions of people around the world ripping their own CD's to Mp3 players but you never hear of anyone getting a knock at the door at 3am because they made their girlfriend/best mate a mix-tape style recording. In exactly the same way they know that people upload and discard record collections and have been doing so for forty years (via different formats) without having their integrity questioned let alone being arrested for doing so. The law exists to enable regulation of piracy and they will make examples of perpetual file-sharing and sharers and those who sell unauthorised copies in various formats in bulk for profit. There are many people; groups; companies and to some extent the government who want to see slightly less restrictions on info-sharing but the BPI, RIAA etc. will always push for the maximum protection but even they do not want to be seen to persecute the average Joe or ostracise the manufacturers of mass-market storage devices (ipods etc.)
even though they know exactly how they will be (mis) used.

Personally, I would say you are perfectly safe to keep a file-copy of your own CD's for your own use and discard them. After all I'm sure if your house was burgled and the thieves stole your entire music collection and you said to the investigating police officers "thank god I've got them in my iTunes library" They would express 'good thinking' not lock you up for not having the originals!

Three things to remember:
1) The law is there to enable prosecutions of serious criminal activity not to nick everyone they can.
2) There are three kinds of people, those who live their lives by the strict letter of the law, others who let it guide them but not rule their lives and those who do what they want regardless of the law.
3) Never announce your actual intentions on a public forum.

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 19:02:32 BDT
Michael says:
"3) Never announce your actual intentions on a public forum." M. C. Williams
Then how are our under staffed, over worked and under appreciated police meant to catch anyone any more?
Remember a large number of those arrested in the UK Riots were caught through the use of forum media such as Twitter and Facebook.

To keep this post on track -
I would like to point out that it is the music industry who want us to move towards music downloads. Not only to keep costs at their end (and only their end) down. We must remember all of those excessive costs that are placed onto the production, shipping and storing of a CD, whereas a download is easily stored on a hard-disk and sent through the internet at a much lower cost, as well as giveing a more manageable control of file sharing.
It was the music industries attempt at controlling our ability to copy music CD's that ended up with the SACD. It could only play the SACD content on a SACD player. As a way of stopping people ripping the music they own from the disk. A SACD CD has a built in copy-right protection, yet the normal audio is easily ripped by a normal computer. So because they allowed for backwards compatibility to extend the sales it was a failure in control.
The downloading of music is the next attempt of control. The download medium of the future may allow meta-data to hold the details of the machines the file has passes through, allowing those who distribute the file to be detected. The same way they can trace where a USB stick has been.

Posted on 10 Jun 2012 19:32:54 BDT
Sparky says:
What if you have copied a cd and the original is stolen or lost or accidentally destroyed etc. Do you have to 'lose' the copy somehow or can you still use it as a replacement for the original. Could you then by extension of this concept sell the copy. ............. just covering all bases.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 19:35:01 BDT
Iggle Piggle says:
You would claim on your insurance and buy another.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 21:47:05 BDT
Sparky says:
With a £50 excess and no proof of purchase? I don't think an insurance claim is the answer somehow;maybe an option in the Night Garden though ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 21:58:17 BDT
Iggle Piggle says:
Clearly it would depend, wouldn't it? The relevance of the £50 excess would depend on the circumstances. If you don't have proof of purchase, whose fault is that? The problem is that in the days before you could rip CDs any loss would just be a fact of life and you would have to buy another or accept that it was gone.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012 22:22:12 BDT
if this is true i am giving up on society and sticking to buying music in 80s/90s

Posted on 11 Jun 2012 15:43:08 BDT
Peter Lanky says:
Sparky. As current UK law stands you cannot rip a CD even for your own use (hopefully soon to change when politicians get round to modifying the law), so if you do have the CD stolen and keep the ripped file you are not technically doing anything more wrong than you were already doing. In reality, as with most people, I wouldn't worry about it as nobody will really notice or even care unless you start sharing it and even then sharing it big time.

Posted on 11 Jun 2012 16:49:15 BDT
Sparky says:
Thanks Peter, as soon as I figure out which buttons to press I'll get cracking - I mean ripping.

Posted on 14 Jun 2012 21:42:05 BDT
if its breaking the law to copy a cd for your own use,then to sell the original on,well why then is it not against the law to pay for a mp3 track/album? you dont physically own the actual album/track,yet we are downloading them,which is a copy by rights. Regardless of all this, i have always known that you can make a copy for your own personal use but it is illegal to sell that copy on,the original you can get rid of and that copy is still yours as long as you dont sell it for a profit.
anyway,everyone including myself are starting to sound like broken records,pardon the pun.
in my opion,i would say keep the rare cds, and sell on the common ones,that you know at some time that if you want it again,you can easily buy it or download it.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 14:27:57 BDT
It is true. If you sell the CD and retain the mp3, you have effectively created an additional copy which you are then selling for profit. Sells the CDs, but legally you should delete the mp3 copies.

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 14:40:13 BDT
Peter Lanky says:
Again lost in a good book. If you pay for a downloaded copy from a legal dealer, then you are also effectively purchasing a license to own it. When you buy a CD you are buying a licence to own the CD, not any files ripped from it. Also as I said in an earlier post, it is not yet legal in the UK to even copy your own CD for personal use, though this is academic as nobody is going to chase anyone for doing it, as it would make a mockery of owning a digital music server, as the vast majority of music stored on them will be ripped as opposed to downloaded.

Personally I would like to see remastered music available free or at a fraction of the cost for people who already own the CD, LP or even cassette. The industry is always banging on about purchasing the 'artistic content' rather than a piece of plastic, so anyone already owning the music should be able to download it legally for free.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 22:16:48 BDT
Unequivocally I'd say keep them.

Around 2002 I went back to vinyl and came to the conclusion that CDs sucked. I had the same thoughts that you're having now but decided to stash the ol' silver platters away instead of dumping them onto the local charity shop. Fast forward to 2012 and I've finally figured out how to get a good sound out of digital - CDs do not suck after all! And the beauty is, since I kept all my CDs I've been able to rip them to flac format and am really digging them all over again (with much better sonics). The CDs are the "master". You don't ever want to dump the master copy.

Audio quality is at an all-time low and continually sinking. For true music lovers, there is ALWAYS a benefit to keeping your records and CDs , even if you give them a rest for a decade.

Posted on 17 Jun 2012 09:49:36 BDT
thanks mojo - suspicions confirmed - audio quality reflects the wider world - nonsense prevails, gravity fails
grace and virtue turn into stupidity..(as elvis costello put it in useless beauty)

the centre will not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...Yeats misquoted i fear

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2012 16:40:54 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jun 2012 16:43:33 BDT
RayB says:
Back up the HD is the answer. I have 3 copies of my digitalized music, the original HD where it was originally ripped to iTunes, the copy transferred onto my iPod and a back of of the original HD on a seperate HD.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2012 16:59:34 BDT
RayB says:
As long as you own the music and the copy is for your own use you can do what you like with it.The problem starts when you sell or otherwise dispose of the original, you no longer own it and therefore in law have no right to have a copy.
It also needs mentioning that if your original is stolen it still legally belongs to you and therefore you are still entitled to own a copy. Hope that clears that up.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2012 17:55:26 BDT
Peter Lanky says:
It doesn't clear it up...because it's not correct.

Posted on 18 Jun 2012 18:09:12 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jun 2012 20:12:30 BDT
RayB says:
Please explain why it is not correct. In English law you remain the legal owner of anything stolen from you, and this remains unless and until you accept a settlement from an insurance company in which case ownership transfers to them.

Posted on 19 Jun 2012 08:33:33 BDT
Peter Lanky says:
The first statement is incorrect.

Read this:

It is one of a number of articles which has appeared in the last year or so outlining plans to change the law, but as of yet it has not been implemented, probably because politicians would rather upset the voters they represent, rather than those with the big money, so they are dithering. Unfortunately those running the music industry lack the intelligence to differentiate between people who copy music for their own use either as a back up or to use in a different format, and those who make personal gain from copying and distributing.

Even with illegal music , these same people lack the intelligence to realise that there are people who download an illegal copy to listen to it and then go on to buy the CD, thus increasing their profits. They think very one-dimensionally.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2012 09:28:12 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
I know, lets look at a random seventy or so people discussing CD/ripping and the law.
Let's say on a customer forum, this should provide a good cross-section of the public that have at some time or another made a copy of some music either for themselves or for a friend. Has any one of those people experienced any form of judicial reprimand for doing so?

Thought not.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2012 11:13:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jun 2012 11:16:31 BDT
RayB says:
OK fair enough. But the PRS have indicated on more than one occasion that they would not support the prosecution of anyone making copies of their own music for their own use. But who knows?
And you are quite right about one dimensional thinking, but greed often obscures reason.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2012 11:29:01 BDT
Peter Lanky says:
I think it's generally accepted that nobody will be prosecuted, otherwise everyone using a digital music server would be falling foul of the law. It's just the government dithering on implementing the change to make it officially legal.

You never know though, if somebody decides that the crime statistics need bumping up to meet the latest targets, that nabbing .flac and .mp3 owners would be an even easier target than persecuting motorists to reach the targets. ;)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  mp3 discussion forum
Participants:  141
Total posts:  361
Initial post:  9 Apr 2012
Latest post:  1 Apr 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 19 customers

Search Customer Discussions