What to do with 1,200 CDs I don't need

Gee.. For THOUSANDS of years, artists managed to survive the same way the rest of us did.
Then, magically, they got to work for awhile, then get paid forever.
Now they are not the only ones... Walt Disney has been collecting on those same old 1930's ideas for many decades..
As far as I am concerned. the shift to "intellectual property" is bogus.
This DOES concern these musical claims of eternal ownership.
They are overinflated, and if the recording companies have not managed to "kill by starvation" (cheating them, point blank) all the artists they represent, then a few (million) downloads will not either.
Like you hear all the time in the news how the Rolling Stones are living in a homeless shelter 'cuz they ain't making any money... You didn't hear that??? golly.
=================================================
There is a great divide between these opinions expressed here.
You think the person who managed to make something interesting has an eternal right to it's exclusive use.
I think they do not. Whatever cultural input from the world helped shape them ALSO deserves some payback.
No-one created any idea fully formed from a total vacuum.
I do not download, or copy things I do not own. However, I agree that the people who DO, have the right to do so if it is for personal use.
i know folks who have 20,000 ripped off songs in their harddrive.
They listen to a dozen of them.
I certainly don't care if they have the rest sitting there.
And if you and the RIAA are dying because they have stolen your tunes... I think you need to find a new way to make a living.
(Also, personally, I believe that the only ones crying about this all either worry about thier own so called "intellectual property", or are stooges for the R.I.A.A.)

ELIZABETH IS A STOOGE FOR THE RIAA. Unbelievable, but I personally believe it to be true. I have only one question - how much do they pay you to tout your "personal" opinions? Opinions so outrageous and at odds with existing laws that the RIAA could point to your posts and use them as examples of why they need the draconian anti-consumer laws they wish to enact. What fair minded legislator wouldn't want to stop someone who publicly brags about their part in illegal activity? Your actions and your working for the RIAA are the most cynical actions I have ever witness here on Audiogon. Frankly, I am shocked!

My own belief is that the issue of massive, free digital distribution and copying is unsolvable according to the traditional models. I think artists will have to move to an "honor system" of online donations -- tips, really, like busking all over again -- for the music of theirs that people enjoy after taking it for free off the net. This implies that artists should just go ahead and provide said music for free (or nominally low cost) over the net, with the full expectation that it will propagate in the way that is now widely considered to be a problem (and illegal). The first "difficulty" with this is that it would largely cut out the labels (cry me a river). I don't know what artists actually get paid these days per album sold -- a couple of bucks? Simply go online and give an artist whose songs you've downloaded an album's worth of $2 directly. When the legacy need for physical media and packaging finally fades away (except for a niche enthusiast market), overhead will be much lower -- basically just creating and maintaining a website, while ever more of today's popular music seems to be made in low cost "project studios" anyway. Let videos die -- MTV doesn't show them anymore, and they were never good for the music, just an expense which gave the labels more control. A new model of "record labels" will probably thrive in this environment, ones which operate primarily through their websites and function much more like the numerous independents of yore than the humongous conglomerates of today, being portals catering to defined tastes and genres. There may be considerably less concentrated money in this model, but it will be less dysfunctional from both the artistic and business standpoints. The "major labels" can revert to just doing a similar business with their back catalogs and quit trying to shove their present day mass-produced crap down our collective throats, they'll be much less top-heavy for the change. Government action may help facilitate the transition, by breaking up monopolies both among the major labels and also in radio station ownership, but if that never happens, tech and market forces (read: the internet, wireless and satellite, and the existence of better options content-wise) will eventually accomplish it for us.