> >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

The right of resale is well established in copyright law for a
number of cases; what is shady is copying a CD and then selling
it as used.  I agree it is not doing as much to support the
artist, but _buying_ used stuff is on a good ethical footing,
assuming that you don't have reason to think that the seller
copied it.

--
    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu