At 03:32 PM 4/2/98 -0800, you wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, SHIMIZU KENJI wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Anne Bulin wrote:
>> > Probably already know this, but buying a used CD is only slightly better
>> > than buying an SM CD. 
>
>>  ...Good point ^_^;
>
>> > Artists, etc. don't get royalties from used sales either - but I suppose 
>> > they at least got something when it was originally purchased.
>
>I disagree. Purchase of the used CD is, basically, a transfer of the 
>ownership. The previous owner looses the ability to listen to that CD,
>while new owner gains the ability to listen to it. There's *still* only 
>one physical CD exists and it's been paid for to the artist. It's the 
>same as buying used stereo, car, etc.

You make a good point, it is true that when one sells something they lose
the ability to use it further. However - if someone buys a CD used, rather
the new, that is one less new CD 'sale' being cedited and one less set of
royalties being paid to the artist. You can't compare it to buying a used
car/stereo or other such item, since those manufacturers don't deal in
royalties. I know it's not in the same league as pirating, but if one is
going to argue that SM doesn't pay royalties to the artists- then the same
arguement has to be applied to used sales as well. 

Disclaimer: I have nothing against purchasing used CDs, I'm just making a
point.

Anne