Collection MC classical SACDs for sale

[Bill B]

Gee, maybe you should edit out the line about you ripping the discs then it's all legal. Or add an "edit line" that you will delete them all upon the sale of each. Millions of people do this every year, they just don't admit that they have copies of them and no one comes looking.

 

[stoopid]

A day to list 600 titles? Working 10 hours that would be 60 an hour!

You’d need to ship Media mail. USPS doesn’t offer free packaging for that.

Ship priority for tracking and (more importantly) insurance. The buyer is paying, most buyers will happily pay the extra for the peace of mind. Being a consignment situation I wouldn't do it any other way, dealing with lost parcels is a PITA without insurance.

Generate an excel spreadsheet, eBay search for comps [OP can also help with estimated values]. Couple pics from eBay smartphone app straight online/live. Maybe 12 hours. If they needed to be tested that would complicate things to the point it would make the entire endeavor prohibitive, but the OP says they guarantee the titles because he ripped them last time they were out of their cases. I'm not making the guarantees, the OP would be.

If you ever need something done feel free to ask me how to do it. Don't assume you know the best way and want to casually suggest otherwise.

 

[stoopid]

OK I'll try this. Forget ethical, in many jurisdictions what you are doing is illegal.

Yes, selling media but keeping the material even in a purely digital manner is illegal. But we're all friends here trying to help, right?

 

[sunra]

Again, thank you all for your opinions.

 

[sunra]

I’m really not interested in getting into the weeds about how to become an EBay seller. I don’t have the time or patience. Even if I sell the entire collection, I will likely take a large monetary loss as compared to what I paid for the material originally. I am prepared for that.

 

[sunra]

I guess if someone reading this wants to sell my stuff for me, I would discuss that.

It’s not Surround or SACD, so completely off topic, but I have a complete set of all the Grateful Dead live releases. Now THAT really needs someone to break it up. Real EBay bucks there

 

[ubertrout]

Princeton isn't interested? I'm surprised. They're always talking on Facebook about their travels to buy collections.

 

[quicksrt]

pm sent!

 

[barfle]

While it might not be exactly the advice you’re interested in, I told my wife to contact a couple of used record stores in town about my media collection in the event of my untimely demise.

You never know for sure what they will offer, and as my mother found out in her recent estate sale, nobody loves your stuff as much as you do.

 

[sunra]

as my mother found out in her recent estate sale, nobody loves your stuff as much as you do.

Now this is the truth

 

[gene_stl]

"In many jurisdictions" it is legal to copy things that are out of print. There is also the Fair Use doctrine.
My guess is that most QQ members have a relatively loose view of disc copying and some smaller fraction thinks it's a crime against humanity.
I am still angry about how long it took the RIAA suit about writable CDs to get settled and that people have to pay them a tax (on blank media). In an alternate universe where I am a terrorist I would do something naughty to them. I hate all methods of copy protection and DRM and cheer when they get cracked. The argument that you are stealing from the artists holds very little water with me because the main job of stealing from the artist , is and has always been the province of the record labels.

 

[ubertrout]

Not to extend the point, but all SACD backup/archiving/copying is a direct violation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, as enacted in the USA as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act at 17 USC 1201, and in Europe and elsewhere under different names. Distribution of software to copy SACDs in particular triggers both civil and criminal liability. This is true even if the copying would otherwise be a fair use. That said, it's pretty much tolerated, and the point becomes much more where the (c) owner chooses to enforce, not the letter of the law.

 

[sunra]

Ubertrout, from the way your post is phrased, I'm wondering if you are a lawyer or have some actual expertise on these questions?

I had always assumed that personal copying was fair use of a disc that I had legally purchased. Also, there are some record/CD stores still in existence in the US (although many fewer than there once were), so I am assuming there is nothing illegal about selling used SACDs, although maybe that is a gray area as well. I am not planning on selling pirated copies or distributing copies of my discs on the internet, which seems in a more common sense fashion to be obviously illegal. And as your post indicates, information about and software for copying SACDs is pretty widely available. Not to mention hardware than can be specifically used for the playback of the files from copied SACDs being sold by many companies.

At any event, I will probably rush home now and delete all my files so I am in compliance with the law. If there was a way for me to delete this entire thread I would, and if that can't be done, hopefully the mods will close it off from further posts.

 

[ubertrout]

I think that's a fair statement. But remember that on the internet I'm just a rando with an icon of a plaster fish from a 90s adventure game.

Selling used media is legal under 17 USC 109 (first sale). It's fair use to make copies of discs for your own personal use (17 USC 107 as interpreted in the Sony case) unless you're bypassing copy protection. Ripping SACDs is problematic as mentioned above. Selling media you've ripped is kind of complicated, in that strictly speaking there's no violation there - you're not making copies of media you don't own after you sell it. However, in playing back the music you've ripped, the argument is that any of the inevitable in-machine copying is not a fair use and thus unlawful. It's not 100% clear to me that's right, but it's not an unreasonable position. It's become the position of the record labels, though, which is in practice more relevant than a technical reading of the statute.

I wouldn't worry too much about this to be honest, but ymmv. Nothing said here is legal advice.

 

[gene_stl]

without saying too much about the thread , whatever @ubertrout says , you may take to the bank.

 

[Bill B]

At any event, I will probably rush home now and delete all my files so I am in compliance with the law. If there was a way for me to delete this entire thread I would, and if that can't be done, hopefully the mods will close it off from further posts.

Now you are covered. It's all legal because you've deleted all your copies. Sell those sacds without worry.

 

[Owen Smith]

I had always assumed that personal copying was fair use of a disc that I had legally purchased

Untrue in many jurisdictions. In the UK it was originally illegal, then it became legal for a few years, and now it's illegal again (sigh).

EDIT: Scotland has its own legal system, and Northern Ireland is just weird being part the same laws and part different. For UK above I should have said England & Wales.

 

[humprof]

I'm sure I'm not the only one in these parts who gets exercised about issues of copyright and ownership. (FWIW: I'm partial to what people like Cory Doctorow have had to say about such issues. Google him if you're not familiar with his work. I also like the work of the Center for the Public Domain at Duke's School of Law.) But at the risk of sounding tendentious: regardless of the practical and technical and jurisprudence aspects of current relevant laws, and regardless of the long history of powerful corporations gaming the system and changing the law to ensure that it will always work to their advantage: the reason there's an issue here at all is that at some point in the not-so-distant past, it was decided that music and other products of the intellect & the imagination should be inserted into the regime of "property." The question of whether I have a legal right to copy a recording I've purchased and then keep that copy after reselling the "original" is rooted in that historically peculiar, culturally specific conceptual/discursive framework. And I'm not convinced that such a framework is sufficient to govern how people--creators, audiences, and "middlemen" alike--relate to things like music.

 

[ubertrout]

I'm sure I'm not the only one in these parts who gets exercised about issues of copyright and ownership. (FWIW: I'm partial to what people like Cory Doctorow have had to say about such issues. Google him if you're not familiar with his work. I also like the work of the Center for the Public Domain at Duke's School of Law.) But at the risk of sounding tendentious: regardless of the practical and technical and jurisprudence aspects of current relevant laws, and regardless of the long history of powerful corporations gaming the system and changing the law to ensure that it will always work to their advantage: the reason there's an issue here at all is that at some point in the not-so-distant past, it was decided that music and other products of the intellect & the imagination should be inserted into the regime of "property." The question of whether I have a legal right to copy a recording I've purchased and then keep that copy after reselling the "original" is rooted in that historically peculiar, culturally specific conceptual/discursive framework. And I'm not convinced that such a framework is sufficient to govern how people--creators, audiences, and "middlemen" alike--relate to things like music.

There's a certain irony, in that the SACD was pretty specifically devised to take advantage of the additional protections the DMCA offers, with high-resolution and multichannel as incentives to get the public to rebuy their collection in a format they couldn't rip (at the time anyway).

 

[Owen Smith]

There's a certain irony, in that the SACD was pretty specifically devised to take advantage of the additional protections the DMCA offers, with high-resolution and multichannel as incentives to get the public to rebuy their collection in a format they couldn't rip (at the time anyway).

Which came first, DMCA or SACD? I always thought SACD is older.